IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9FA1A0ABD; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f91Qt_H5shxK; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DA811A0ABB; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id d1so9927558wiv.13 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LR74knei+vywwflNWp63ZOYjXEDCkKm7Q0RlK3b5KXs=; b=HKeND36LfzcjBaoG/GkEawJxVmqmKXMA8DGcUPBpy5Qj15aDtcyimZMF+zwzfrI1aa brPJERGwCI6YYSDYV3FFPyoS+txrr7WFBRTNhk7rinMMShfhIh1UTi/sGCNu42lziV2+ Fox3FtiN3OdO6kFEDthS2S1gCVZm6g+738vgxqPtXTmnu9Zkx4RhEtWf4yjykUYrKWG6 AEYVX8tdPYBTdBSh0X1UXkoHpLmLbkZ7Kc/nBdzaJwcB+7dFiAs5rkWoq6vbZbtsWWkk 5qIP5ytd99bs74RyZzglkL9RoIez1FsBd4exSS6cEi/MabEg5uMwTG5+ArgW8IAtL3Nx 3/fA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.62.67 with SMTP id w3mr21174034wjr.32.1407387907827; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.10.99 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 22:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53E2E367.2060703@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <20140806215037.13299.94321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140806170614.0c70d8b0@elandnews.com> <53E2E367.2060703@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 22:05:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYbR3oH8Oosnsi3i+NiULTkOvJuQoOz0CQLTuBnZ4GRYw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b872e9a4eae520500030836"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/qHJBXCFy5KIVopXkJd1aowZry1Y
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes@tools.ietf.org>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 05:05:13 -0000

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I'll add it if the WG thinks it's needed or is a good idea.  I just haven't
seen any call for separating the two cases in practice so far.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email