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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 14 May 2013 16:11 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 EB02521F93F4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, 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 bAhHfCYcw6Mr for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC4B21F93E1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u54so700659wes.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:38 -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=cI4zVvqkllQenXjYkpm1SBq03tuuVAJ7WXvEYAgnCto=; b=o79IJc82CtCocUxNi6cHPE/wFARIowVzti0P9jpPPpa0e9hNeUhuDoji/4UNCCaJLo jW/t6CYflGjER8adiFdigBp75pfMTdbjhCcAqNRXvRANL7iGFfounU54lBugkKLjWGij 6Em1qITSXoGf02QX8mI7VXx3CvAc5kMv4qD8kQw2CXkEpV5qJbTbyISCQpOt0X/F6eev i0yJR33tjLnd4Y6334xPnpR0aidXFqBmBu8ZAdiT+79+oUKy5nFEVH7o/st9cQBxe3xh 9SPxU6rSw4LcKK3JbPQfWt3T8kz7cboXjgPOZVbvECQd00vluP4oYBCo3sfNfTLQO21Z r16g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.228 with SMTP id o4mr7957528wiv.12.1368547892621; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.14.34 with HTTP; Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51923CFB.8090702@isode.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130503141649.0d8252f0@elandnews.com> <51923CFB.8090702@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:11:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbF3CUfChe9C2yASW_FaOtEQwVA7+vyrU2OKpXbdXzZyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043893cd081ba004dcafe32d
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-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: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:11:41 -0000

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com>wrote;wrote:

> In Section 2.2:
>
>    Where an SMTP command is being reported as a "property", the MAIL
>    FROM command MUST be represented by "mailfrom" and the RCPT TO
>    command MUST be represented by "rcptto".  All other SMTP commands
>    MUST be represented unchanged.
>
> This seems to say that the SMTP reference is Normative, because one need
> to be able to lookup list of SMTP commands in RFC 5321. But RFC 5321 is
> listed as Informative.
>

OK.


> In Section 2.5.4:
>
>  LDAP needs an Informative Reference.
>

Are we sure about that?  It's just an example of a related service that
might cause a temperror for SMTP AUTH.  I could change it to "a directory
service" to avoid having to make that reference.  LDAP's not important to
this specification in any way.  I'll do that, actually.

>
>
> 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: your.example.com; banana=foobar

-MSK