> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Scott Kitterman > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:48 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt > > > 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.
With the changes you and John proposed to the document in WGLC, the requirement to report DKIM and SPF results even if you don't check them is gone, and furthermore you don't have to include the other fields that are irrelevant to what you did check. It seems to me that leaves us in an agnostic place with respect to which message authentication methods you're choosing to execute and report, which satisfies what you and John were after while also enabling one to report a "sender-id" result. What am I missing with this thinking? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
