[apps-discuss] Slash and version number in Authentication-results: header field (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-02.txt)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 20 May 2013 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 273F521F8A0C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SXczt4Bmeyyk for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3BD21F90AC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.135.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4K7Eamg022930 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 May 2013 00:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369034090; bh=FWZYukQtOHGUr1oj4mj+83nNsUGLxUkAKKd+W5WxRdg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=H+KJz8sfWmG6XkMdM/EFKYH8JAywEB27gsANcH12n8HyWw3w9QUCwi9JClQ46/E+c rYguooxbtlewXdtYqT7AqESSpHVluV7q7QXgDxnpvoE1RFioQXZMv/cvWGdOSxi2Ig XDVgvvxyb1jBhnoNxIs6Lo40rBCijTzgKdNoGGxs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369034090; i=@elandsys.com; bh=FWZYukQtOHGUr1oj4mj+83nNsUGLxUkAKKd+W5WxRdg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=G3e9/mbLrK/nEKHxvdjVeCKAEx7Z4BxDD8RtREwR9BtpL10mZNYY2ZEm0krYwhVJU RWu7aM8m0dPDA10h3UJ/TXGsIf0F8SJ84f38MLMFCgf34Uao0IUHWhK5BER6xBZsDK gwlFpeXap64Rp02xOMXLIB6WveUzqKfmGyC9OwnM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130519232054.06b2a318@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 00:14:06 -0700
To: Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305191104290.85717@joyce.lan>
References: <CAL0qLwZuMOky2rLBm4UYhgNJmyXaPyO25WhBGrrgK4DUKcAWqg@mail.gmail.com> <20130519052116.75996.qmail@joyce.lan> <CAL0qLwaDwgyKH4DV=s9djw2pf7ULHPzbDn8Unhd_rJLbMaMd1Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1305191104290.85717@joyce.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Slash and version number in Authentication-results: header field (was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-02.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 07:15:02 -0000

Hi Alexey,

Scott Kitterman mentioned [1] that the following:

   authres-header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id	
	[ [CFWS] "/" [CFWS] authres-version ]

  'is an incompatible change and if you really want to make it, you should
   bump the version number.  I checked and with authres, your example is
   mis-parsed.

	Authentication-Results: example.org/1; none

   In this example, the authserv-id is "example.org", but authres, using the
   RFC 5451 ABNF parses this and determines the authserv-id is "example.org/1"'

Murray Kucherawy commented that he has "yet to see a single 
implementation that includes a version number in its output, though 
there are some that do look for it" [2].  John Levine responded that 
his implementation does [3].  He also mentioned that the introduction 
of the slash (see ABNF) creates an incompatibility.

There is also the following in Section 5 of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-02:

   "An MTA SHOULD remove any instance of this header field bearing a
    version (express or implied) that it does not support."

Will the addition of the slash cause an interoperability issue?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09460.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09463.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg09465.html