Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-01 (was -00)

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 08 May 2013 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 C442221F9023 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 02:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vcR3LHioFhLV for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 02:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C51321F900C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 02:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1368005714; bh=B4jeQxvnYjXgerYmKAEp1G+uiry/L+i/T0K+PsMonw8=; l=1071; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=Wa38LYt0cJfB9moHAFtbVhm99Ise6Tyeol2PrLgUdBSNCEBJwJWQdIabj5JnZsaKW 1JfxkQ3327RDVpmdLdQV5Bwc8FF+O6h70l4bMFb3nHsnO4lq9rpEcwa81qpgmY/033 CDJel6jVAk00jRewGtyjo+9IieLzUwSHTjX5oCEI=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.101] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.101]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Wed, 08 May 2013 11:35:13 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.00000000518A1C51.00007B3F
Message-ID: <518A1C4D.3050506@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:35:09 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <5187DA74.9020204@tana.it> <CAL0qLwaMWbLbgAquXXnC1a_CRgu4zUgHwykc71_on2-99eAxww@mail.gmail.com> <518920D0.1040705@tana.it> <CAL0qLwbMQ4QfmgQ0VAX+ajXvgp8DK1AcV5x1dQJacD9BEbUyxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbMQ4QfmgQ0VAX+ajXvgp8DK1AcV5x1dQJacD9BEbUyxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-01 (was -00)
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: Wed, 08 May 2013 09:35:21 -0000

On Wed 08/May/2013 00:35:44 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 
> I'm about to post a new version with this section reworked a bit.  Let me
> know what you think of it.

A couple of nits:

s/contect/context/, and in the sentence:

   For example, [SPF] can base its inclusion on the RFC5321.Helo
   parameter or on the RFC5322.From domain; including both of those
   in the header field makes it impossible for the consumer to
   determine which mode of SPF was applied

s/inclusion/conclusion/, and s/RFC5322.From/RFC5321.MailFrom/.  Maybe
"which parameter was actually used" is clearer than "which mode of SPF
was applied", since SPF lacks a definition of "mode".

On Wed 08/May/2013 01:14:34 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:>
> For citations to this document (well, or the original version, for
> now) from elsewhere, one might say something like this:
> 
> "The description of the Message Authentication Status header field
> [RFC5451], specifies that <...etc...>"

Would it make sense to change the title into:

   *The Authentication-Results Header Field*
?