Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03.txt

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D715221F96BA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lLi2GqllnR3I for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B7B21F96B9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38D120E40D6; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:10:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1369069829; bh=04urMMox8K1DUVzpDlgqNDLUdrsx9JiDc/ERcvEtsAs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=gspLzlyIvyz0oOsfolAGXFIL/d18y4qWE3Dx/l7KJ8zuNudr81gbrUcLGXz97qNYD QKykEYRhrCF/EklUqyuqDOTgarKr7Nw8EJfczO3jfI/gEZfxcT1zA+afbrVhwwdqho Gn4ItpQEcag4+4YHFIbyIs6XkzdTHBHxNtdPuY5I=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (121.sub-70-192-199.myvzw.com [70.192.199.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B013B20E40D4; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:10:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:10:28 -0400
Message-ID: <3171424.UGFPbBNyqi@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-21-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwam9j89iAK2nahYkdmauUB--1yYo_+Mdp_WpDxLbBU9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130520163055.10688.24242.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwam9j89iAK2nahYkdmauUB--1yYo_+Mdp_WpDxLbBU9vQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:10:36 -0000

On Monday, May 20, 2013 09:31:45 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> > 
> >  This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working
> > 
> > Group of the IETF.
> > 
> >         Title           : Message Header Field for Indicating Message
> > 
> > Authentication Status
> > 
> >         Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
> >         Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03.txt
> >         Pages           : 42
> >         Date            : 2013-05-20
> 
> This incorporates the last of the WGLC feedback, including reverting the
> ABNF change that introduced a backward compatibility issue.

Thanks.  That does resolve the concern.

It does looke like you, however, added a note about adding the ABNF change you 
just removed on page 41:

 o ABNF: separate the authserv-id from the spec version with a "/"

These two editorial comments against -02 still appear to apply:

Comments:

>    At the time of publication of this document, Author Domain Signing
>    Practices ([ADSP]), SMTP Service Extension for Authentication
>    ([AUTH]), DomainKeys Identified Mail Signatures ([DKIM])>, Sender
>    Policy Framework ([SPF]), and Vouch-By-Reference ([VBR]) are
>    published DNS domain-level email authentication methods in common
>    use.  DomainKeys ([DOMAINKEYS]) and Sender ID ([SENDERID] are also
>    referenced here, though they respectively have "Historic" and
>    "Experimental" status, and are no longer common.

I've also seen iprev in the wild and it's supported by the python authres 
module I helped develop.  We've also implemented DMARC based on the latest 
draft.  Iprev is in 5451, so I think it should be mentioned.

>    Although SPF defined a header field called "Received-SPF" and
>    DomainKeys defined one called "DomainKey-Status" for this purpose,
>    those header fields are specific to the conveyance of their
>    respective results only and thus are insufficient to satisfy the
>    requirements enumerated below.  In addition, many SPF implementations
>    have adopted the header field specified below, and DomainKeys has
>    been obsoleted by DKIM.

I think this overstates things with respect to SPF.  Most implementations have 
not adopted authres and even in the cases where they have, it's an option, not 
the default.

Scott K