> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt > > No. I think not. Both paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 have DKIM and SPF specific > requirements that are not sufficient for other authentication types. Yes, the > actual header might refer to other types, but without the additional > diagnostic information in from 3.2/3.3.
Right. So if you're reporting for DKIM, there are extra provisions included to allow relaying of meta-data specific to that method. If you want don't want to report on DKIM, you leave out the relevant fields. If you want to report on something else, you'd have to craft an update to this document. For SPF, I don't think there's any meta-data that needs its own field in this kind of report, since Authentication-Results would carry that information already. So we're already there. > At the very least sender-id would have to be added to the list of > authentication failure types in 3.3 (I propose we not do this and just focus > on DKIM/SPF). If we want to be complete about it, perhaps 3.3 should become an IANA action to create a registry for authentication failure types. Then someone wanting to add support for Sender-ID or some other method could register a new failure mode and all the various extra fields that it requires (if any). But you're probably right (as is John) that "spf" should probably be broken out, since there are more than one DKIM failure mode enumerated already. Does that sound right? -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
