On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:39 AM, John C Klensin <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
