Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-01 (was -00)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 10 May 2013 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 077EB21F8E5B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xpw2e8EVVu1F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265FE21F8B64 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q55so4091318wes.26 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6biA4j0dDkBSUlk4rDNC9bBPMk/p2JSOCi/DVpaNZv0=; b=dPB2uA/un5F5QhbwrmFKLemq4MNgSJLSrbZVlCNRx349Q7noLtq6qiUlmTbDl7aofF oWWpCkFf7Pnya4RZ474DlYshL6eCZ5zuEw6EuxwsvIuR6E/AMLG5I8vN8YuLtKQyO/+E nqhPnm4oUFCOkTqhZCQTkLBSBZPEC6TV2n31SHOsFOZSLh+aIkt7ZHO9EG75N9dLnCv5 RMultYNypPG/MUJXUBBZ9TCfivOmezokX6d/BDI0Lm/sYsxQJIZhOa78S8AMW0xS24Gz 6D37gOmYg+r3Ptkpp8BjGl6CbCvPCh9GrG6+SY8Zl5ti4snhNHX6fli44KS/WBKGV5/E Ovbg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.179.169 with SMTP id dh9mr19734412wjc.15.1368205143327; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.14.34 with HTTP; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <518A1C4D.3050506@tana.it>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <5187DA74.9020204@tana.it> <CAL0qLwaMWbLbgAquXXnC1a_CRgu4zUgHwykc71_on2-99eAxww@mail.gmail.com> <518920D0.1040705@tana.it> <CAL0qLwbMQ4QfmgQ0VAX+ajXvgp8DK1AcV5x1dQJacD9BEbUyxQ@mail.gmail.com> <518A1C4D.3050506@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:59:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYJ+nBjyU5aiCOGH4uef3oiU1Wnb3EhNzwPVuMXShn+eA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419f4a8c4c5e04dc60159b
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-01 (was -00)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 16:59:05 -0000

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> A couple of nits:
>
> s/contect/context/, and in the sentence:
>
>    For example, [SPF] can base its inclusion on the RFC5321.Helo
>    parameter or on the RFC5322.From domain; including both of those
>    in the header field makes it impossible for the consumer to
>    determine which mode of SPF was applied
>
> s/inclusion/conclusion/, and s/RFC5322.From/RFC5321.MailFrom/.  Maybe
> "which parameter was actually used" is clearer than "which mode of SPF
> was applied", since SPF lacks a definition of "mode".
>

Fixed, fixed, and fixed.


>
> > "The description of the Message Authentication Status header field
> > [RFC5451], specifies that <...etc...>"
>
> Would it make sense to change the title into:
>
>    *The Authentication-Results Header Field*
>
>
I don't think that's necessary.

-MSK