Re: [apps-discuss] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 07/08/14 00:55, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> - Since only one code is returned and since the client has to
>> assume that other failures may have happened in parallel, and
>> since the X.7.20 code covers two different things (i.e. (a) and
>> (b) from 3.1), did the wg consider splitting out 3.1's (a) and
>> (b) into different codes?  That way the 3.1.a code would
>> conform to 6376 and the 3.1.b code would be "failed my local
>> DKIM specifics." Seems to me that splitting those out might be
>> better but I'm fine if this was considered and rejected (i.e.
>> no need to re-do the reason for rejecting, just tell me it
>> happened and that'll be fine).
>>
> 
> There haven't to my knowledge been any instances of wanting or needing to
> report 3.1.a separately from 3.1.b, which is why they're rolled into the
> same status code.  To date the only distinction of interest is between
> what's covered by x.7.20 and x.7.21, namely the domain name alignment.  In
> that sense all we're documenting here is a set of codes that match what the
> industry has been doing since DKIM started achieving serious deployment.

Sure, I get that.

If separating 3.1.a and 3.1.b doesn't resonate with folks, that's
fine, we should just move on. However, if it did, then that'd I
think get rid of some of the odd language about the DKIM spec. But
its a minor point, not worth more mail unless people want to take
that route.

Cheers,
S.


> 
> -MSK
>