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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[e-mail]>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