Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-05: (with DISCUSS)

[Terry Zink <[e-mail]>]

This is a style nitpick and you can feel free to ignore. I have one complaint/suggestion regarding this text:

Description:       This status code is returned when a message
                          did not contain any acceptable DKIM
                          signatures.  (Note that this violates the
                          advice of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)

Description:       This status code is returned when a message
                          did not contain any acceptable DKIM
                          signatures whose identifier(s) match the
                          author address(es) found in the From header
                          field.  (Note that this violates the advice
                          of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)  This is a
                          special case of the X.7.20 status code.

The first two words of the phrases "Note that this violates the advice..." is redundant and superfluous [1]. In writing, if you have something to note, then note it; don't say "Note that..." In other words, I propose the shorter text "This violates the advice...".

-- Terry

[1] Note that the words "and superfluous" is redundant in that sentence.


From: apps-discuss [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick
Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 9:26 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG; IETF Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-05: (with DISCUSS)

On 8/4/14 11:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Aha. That wasn't clear to me from the current text. I took "valid" to only be referring to passing the basic DKIM verification algorithms. I didn't realize that not passing local policies was a reason to send back X.7.20. Perhaps you could clarify the text?

How's this for a new Section 3.1?

Much clearer. I'll remove my DISCUSS in the morning, unless Barry wants me to leave it for housekeeping purposes; I'll assume that you all can decide on the specifics. Thanks for DISCUSSing it.

pr


3.1.  DKIM Failure Codes

   In the code point definitions below, the term "acceptable" means both
   of the following:

   a.  The signature passed the basic DKIM verification algorithm as
       defined in [RFC6376]; and

   b.  The signature satisfied any local policy requirements in addition
       to the basic algorithm (e.g., certain header fields included in
       the signed content, no partial signatures, etc.).

      Code:               X.7.20
      Sample Text:        No valid DKIM signature found
      Associated basic status code:  550
      Description:        This status code is returned when a message
                          did not contain any acceptable DKIM
                          signatures.  (Note that this violates the
                          advice of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)
      Reference:          [this document]; RFC6376
      Submitter:          M. Kucherawy
      Change controller:  IESG


      Code:               X.7.21
      Sample Text:        No valid author-matched DKIM signature found
      Associated basic status code:  550
      Description:        This status code is returned when a message
                          did not contain any acceptable DKIM
                          signatures whose identifier(s) match the
                          author address(es) found in the From header
                          field.  (Note that this violates the advice
                          of Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)  This is a
                          special case of the X.7.20 status code.
      Reference:          [this document]; RFC6376
      Submitter:          M. Kucherawy
      Change controller:  IESG






_______________________________________________

apps-discuss mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss





--

Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/><http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]