Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00

Alessandro Vesely <> Thu, 16 May 2013 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB5721F8F0F for <>; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.519
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aiHYe7XgXgy for <>; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D50821F8930 for <>; Thu, 16 May 2013 06:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; t=1368710695; bh=g5bWlCqFgkmU33YzlZb8pIPPKuYcaH91p5SbH250dLE=; l=1922; h=Date:From:To:CC:References:In-Reply-To; b=Jk/V1OsKctHtRF+J0AoN1qUpL4LLSz3r9Krc/OYooAmzqe/dPMCGtbfXvTIxTIO2v c8Qs3XeY/jP5bJ2lP/8I4Pe4FQM8P/jI/TIQN005NKcVFJCYBLrEBjydzEd5fLybpa arXW7bQPky8ZoZ01n3emOkRYdZ76YrIJ2yL9pZ5E=
Authentication-Results:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [] (printer.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by with ESMTPSA; Thu, 16 May 2013 15:24:55 +0200 id 00000000005DC048.000000005194DE27.00007855
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:24:54 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Apps Discuss <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Sam Varshavchik <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:25:03 -0000

On Tue 14/May/2013 18:57:58 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Alexey Melnikov <> wrote:
>>>> 2.5.5.  Extension Result Codes
>>>>    Additional result codes (extension results) might be defined in the
>>>>    future by later revisions or extensions to this specification.
>>>>    Result codes MUST be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers
>>>>    Authority (IANA) and preferably published in an RFC.  See Section 6
>>>>    for further details.
>>>>    Extension results MUST only be used within ADMDs that have explicitly
>>>>    consented to use them.  These results and the parameters associated
>>>>    with them are not formally documented.  Therefore, they are subject
>>>>    to change at any time and not suitable for production use.  Any MTA,
>>>>    MUA or downstream filter intended for production use SHOULD ignore or
>>>>    delete any Authentication-Results header field that includes an
>>>>    extension result.
>>>> I am mostly curious to see some examples of such extensions.
>>> You could make one up and imagine using it.  Barry likes "banana", so:
>>> Authentication-Results:; banana=foobar
>> Ok. Are there many of these in the wild?
> There is no way to know for sure, of course.  Most of the ones I know that
> were being tried have since been registered, so I don't personally know of
> any that fit in the description of 2.5.5 anymore.

One is the DNS White List (dnswl) method, used by Courier (mentioned
in Appendix E).  It writes:


Since it was me who suggested to use Authentication-Results, I think
it's up to me to register that.  I'm waiting for this I-D to get
published so as to avail of Designated Expert rather than IETF review.