On Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:25:29 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:22 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on > > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt > > > > Does it have a constituency? There are quite a number of auth methods > > covered in auth-results that we don't cover and I don't think we should > > extend beyone SPF/DKIM unless someone needs it. > > If we're insisting that we not say you have to report specific ones, then > being completely agnostic seems the right path to me.
I don't see how that follows. Perhaps the method specific stuff needs to move to the method specific draft so that if someone wants to (later) do a sender-id draft then the can do it. I'd rather ignore it, but I think making it easier for someone who cares enough about sender-id (or method foo) can do so works too. I don't think overcomplicating the current effort is a good idea. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
