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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 8/6/14 7:18 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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.

And to be clear, my DISCUSS was because I thought the text was not clear 
that 3.1.a and 3.1.b were being combined in X.7.20. Now the text is 
clear that they are, which is why I moved off of my DISCUSS, but that's 
not to say that I think it's good that they're combined. Murray has 
argued that there has been no need to split them and therefore there is 
no likely future need to do so either. The WG should probably decide if 
that's true, because once you put X.7.20 in to mean the combination of 
3.1.a and 3.1.b, there's no going back; if you decide later that they 
ought to be split, you'll be deprecating X.7.20 and making two new 
codes. I'd rather see them split now, but it's not a showstopper, and if 
the WG considers it and decides it's not necessary, like Stephen I will 
be fine with it.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]