Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > If you look at the discussion of iprev in
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7601#section-2.7.3 it covers the exact
> same
> > ground as this proposal with regards to ptype selection.  I believe it's
> > clear that policy is the correct choice.
>
> I guess you mean the paragraph:
>
>    The result is reported using a ptype of "policy" (as this is not part
>    of any established protocol) and a property of "iprev".
>
> That looks like an explanation of the naming, it doesn't seem to mandate
> that
> every ptype must be "policy" unless the related property belongs to an
> established protocol.  The definition of "policy" in Section 2.4 differs.
>

In what way?


> Would a name like, say, client.ip=192.0.2.1 have been an equally valid
> choice?
>

I think it would.


> From that definition it is not clear if or why a method is bound to use at
> most
> one ptype.
>

There is no such restriction.


> My understanding was that RFC7410 allowed to add new ptypes as needed
> without
> having to update the A-R header field name definition each time.  Can you
> envisage what kind of change would be required in order to call A DNS zone
> dns.zone?
>

There would have to be a property of the message derived from the DNS.  The
property you're trying to report, i.e. the name of the DNSWL you queried,
is a local configuration choice rather than something extracted from either
SMTP or the message itself, so it falls squarely within the definition of
"policy".

-MSK