Hi Murray,
At 11:17 13-05-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
By my read, the bulk of your comments fall into these categories:
(1) Remove the normative language, publish as Informational
As I said to John, I'd be fine with this. The document started out
as Informational but there was working group momentum in the
direction of a BCP instead, hence the conversion to use of RFC2119
language. I personally don't have strong feelings about that so if
the preferred course of action is to go back to that, I'd be fine.
Ok.
Yes, I believe they are consistent. The citation you made from
RFC5451 directs implementations to delete forgeries (the MUST) and
optionally delete everything else as well (the MAY). The citation
from this document does not dispute the MUST, and provides further
guidance for this particular application (which is also consistent
with other parts of RFC5451) in terms of how to deal with what's
left after the MUST part is done.
Ok.
3.6.2 applies to relays, not recipients. A relay might try DKIM
validation and ADSP evaluation, but that's not the model this
document discusses.
However, if that doesn't matter, unfortunately this makes the
distinction we're trying to make impossible without using enhanced
status codes, which aren't universally used. But to be conformant,
I suppose 550 5.7.0 would be appropriate.
You can use 550 5.7.1. The enhanced status code used in the draft is
appropriate.
Thanks for the quick response. BTW, I forgot to the "best current
practices" in Section 8. It's an editorial nit.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf