Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:00:56 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
        Author          : Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-04.txt
	Pages           : 50
	Date            : 2015-03-23

Abstract:
   This document specifies a message header field called Authentication-
   Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results
   of message authentication efforts.  Any receiver-side software, such
   as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field
   to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users
   or to make sorting and filtering decisions.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:05:36 -0700

>    or to make sorting and filtering decisions.

This tackles all of Tom Petch's outstanding issues, and all others that I
know of.  Please review.  If there's nothing outstanding, I believe it's
ready for WGLC.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 06:50:34 -0400

On Monday, March 23, 2015 08:05:36 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >  This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working
> > 
> > Group of the IETF.
> > 
> >         Title           : Message Header Field for Indicating Message
> > 
> > Authentication Status
> > 

There was one error introduced in this revision.  Where it says:

 	For SPF, the ptype used is "smtp", and the property is any of	
	"mailfrom", "helo", and "ehlo", since those values are the ones SPF	
	can evaluate.	

"ehlo" isn't a valid property.  The property is "helo" and it contains the 
value of "helo" or "ehlo" as needed.  Needs to say 'either of "mailfrom" or 
"helo"' instead.

Also, right after that, where it says:

	Note that both of those documents specify result codes that use mixed	
	case, but they are typically used all lowercase in this context.

That's no longer true for SPF since the SPF reference is updated from RFC 4408 
to RFC 7208.  It's only relevant for Sender ID now.

Neither of these should prevent the start of WGLC in my opinion.

Scott K

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:33:29 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:05 PM
> know of.  Please review.  If there's nothing outstanding, I believe
it's

Indeed. It clears all my outstanding issues.

Meanwhile:-(,

s 2.3 /inidcate/indicate /

'it ignores the result reported with that  "ptype". '

Is that a SHOULD or MUST, even?

Tom Petch

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:15:59 -0700

> Indeed. It clears all my outstanding issues.

Huzzah!

> s 2.3 /inidcate/indicate /

Fixed for -05 (not a WGLC-stopper at any rate).

> Is that a SHOULD or MUST, even?

This draft doesn't use RFC2119 words at all, but still manages to be
normative.  That is, what you've cited is equivalent to a MUST.  Pete, back
me up here.  ;-)

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:23:35 -0700

> value of "helo" or "ehlo" as needed.  Needs to say 'either of "mailfrom" or

In Section 2.2 we say that the "smtp" ptype can have a property of any
valid SMTP command.  EHLO is one.  Moreover, SPF can evaluate EHLO,
naturally.  So if we make the change you're talking about, we also need to
say that EHLO is mapped to HELO in this context.  Would that satisfy this
issue?

> to RFC 7208.  It's only relevant for Sender ID now.

Done for -05.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:18:33 -0400

>say that EHLO is mapped to HELO in this context.  Would that satisfy

Yes. As I read the registry that's what it says to do.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:20:07 -0700

> Yes. As I read the registry that's what it says to do.

Cool, done for -05.

Stephane, what say you?

-MSK

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:27:13 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 5:15 PM
> normative.  That is, what you've cited is equivalent to a MUST.  Pete,
back

Murray

I am confused.

s.1.5.1 Key Words has the usual extract about RFC2119 while I think I
see in the text
"then it MUST use the right hand"
"uniqueness of the identifier MUST "
"MUST pertain to that ADMD.  "
etc a total of 19 times.  What am I missing?

Tom Petch

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:59:40 -0700

> etc a total of 19 times.  What am I missing?

You fell victim to my temporary insanity.

Translation: I was apparently thinking about a different document somehow.
You're right, I'm wrong.  The text has been fixed up; thanks to Pete for
his help.

I'll post -05 when I hear back from Stephane.

-MSK