Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 14 May 2013, at 17:11, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> In Section 2.5.4:
> 
>  LDAP needs an Informative Reference.
> 
> Are we sure about that?  It's just an example of a related service that might cause a temperror for SMTP AUTH.  I could change it to "a directory service" to avoid having to make that reference.  LDAP's not important to this specification in any way.  I'll do that, actually.

I don't particularly care. Any protocol you mention needs a reference though.

> 2.5.5.  Extension Result Codes
> 
>    Additional result codes (extension results) might be defined in the
>    future by later revisions or extensions to this specification.
>    Result codes MUST be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers
>    Authority (IANA) and preferably published in an RFC.  See Section 6
>    for further details.
> 
>    Extension results MUST only be used within ADMDs that have explicitly
>    consented to use them.  These results and the parameters associated
>    with them are not formally documented.  Therefore, they are subject
>    to change at any time and not suitable for production use.  Any MTA,
>    MUA or downstream filter intended for production use SHOULD ignore or
>    delete any Authentication-Results header field that includes an
>    extension result.
> 
> I am mostly curious to see some examples of such extensions.
> 
> You could make one up and imagine using it.  Barry likes "banana", so:
> 
> Authentication-Results: your.example.com; banana=foobar

Ok. Are there many of these in the wild?