Re: [apps-discuss] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-09: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the quick response--it addresses all of my 
questions/comments. None of them appear to need changes in the text.

Ben.

On 13 May 2015, at 17:56, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> -- 2.6, 2nd paragraph:
>>
>> Why might one choose _not_ to include version tokens?
>>
>
> They've been optional since RFC5451.  None of the authentication 
> methods
> currently supported have any version other than the basic ones.  This 
> was
> added in anticipation of needing them, but that need has not (so far)
> materialized.
>
>
>> -- 2.7.7, first paragraph, last sentence:
>>
>> I’m not sure how such a “preference” should be applied for IANA 
>> stuff
>>
>
> The Designated Expert for the registry can insist on something be 
> published
> if the description associated with a result code is non-trivial.  In 
> the
> spirit of keeping IANA requirements minimal, we chose not to require 
> it.
>
>
>> -- 4, last sentence:
>>
>> Known not to authenticate, or not known to authenticate?
>>
>
> "Known not" is correct.  For example, SPF does not authenticate the
> local-part of an email address, so MUAs shouldn't claim that it did.
>
>
>> -- 4.1, 2nd paragraph
>>
>> is it reasonable for users to be expected to know which services are 
>> used
>> in their ADMDs?
>>
>
> If MUAs are using A-R content for filtering, then yes, that's the
> assumption.
>
>
>> -- 5, last paragraph:
>>
>> How do you imply a version?
>>
>
> The ABNF in Section 2.2 says the version of this specification is "1", 
> and
> that's the version of A-R assumed to be in use if no version is 
> explicitly
> provided; it's implied by the generator and inferred by the consumer.
>
> -MSK