Hi Hilda,
On 05/Jul/11 18:11, Hilda Fontana wrote:
> Not sure I follow what your asking?
Hm... my English is what it is, please be patient :-)
>> Alternatively, the ARF extension could list what a method
>> extension must do in order to define and register the details of
>> failure-reporting for the specific authentication method it
>> addresses.
>
> ?? in what way are you suggesting?
Roughly, a section more or less like
X.Y.Z. Definition and Registration of Method-Specific Extensions
The IANA maintains a registry of Email Authentication Methods
along with their possible results. A "method-specific extension"
extends an authentication method by providing for the possibility
to report its result using the ARF format specified in this
document. Any such extension must specify:
* which method(s) it addresses;
* which result(s) of the addressed method(s) deserve being
reported;
* a list of one or more keywords to be used in the Auth-Failure
field when reporting such results; and
* the location and the syntax of the report parameters whose
semantic content is described in Section U.V.W.
In addition, a method-specific extension may define further ARF
header fields. In case it does so, it shall also define the
corresponding updates to ARF header field names in its IANA
Considerations section.
Section U.V.W would discuss r, rf, and ri, and possibly mention ro and
rs too. Not how they are syntactically encoded, just what they mean.
Does the above make sense?
>> B The splitting is fine as it is, although not in a "normal
>> form". It is extremely unlikely that "iprev" or any other
>> method will ever need a failure reporting mechanism. The
>> sooner we go to testing and deploying, the better.
>
> ?not in a normal form?
"Normal" in the sense of orthogonal or perpendicular; that is, having
independent semantics along the "axes". Basically, I mean loosely
coupled with the method extensions.
Indeed, I think authfailure-report can be written without mentioning
neither "dkim" nor "spf", except for possible examples. I guess that
would enhance comprehensibility. However, the WG should decide
whether to go this way _before_ delving into any finer tuning, if it's
not too late already.
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
