On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:39 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
(d) It seems to me that the cases this proposal addresses are
special enough that a dedicated Extended Status Code would be in
order. Instead, the document specifies the highly generic 5.1.2
(even those the RFC 3463 definition of X.1.2 includes "incapable
of accepting mail" and "invalid for mail" (which don't mean
quite the same thing). Especially since there is not an
easily-located WG discussion, the document should at least
explain its choice.
If consensus is to register a new code as suggested, one could certainly help himself to a cloning of the useful parts of draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes, now in Last Call.
-MSK