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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,
At 14:50 06-08-2014, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>- 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 was a DISCUSS from Pete ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg12731.html 
).  Murray suggested some text for Section 3.1, i.e. the (a) and the 
(b) ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg12732.html ).

The question of whether 3.1 (a) and (b) should be split into two 
different codes did not arise during the working group discussions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)