[apps-discuss] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


- Since only one code is returned and since the client has to
assume that other failures may have happened in parallel, and
since the X.7.20 code covers two different things (i.e. (a) and
(b) from 3.1), did the wg consider splitting out 3.1's (a) and
(b) into different codes?  That way the 3.1.a code would
conform to 6376 and the 3.1.b code would be "failed my local
DKIM specifics." Seems to me that splitting those out might be
better but I'm fine if this was considered and rejected (i.e.
no need to re-do the reason for rejecting, just tell me it
happened and that'll be fine).

- The intro could make the X.7.nn notation clearer, but it
becomes blatently obvious if one reads 5248 so its ok unless
you want to be extra-nice to the reader.