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

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

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*
?