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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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.

-MSK