> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt > > I think this document could be made more generic pretty easily by leveraging > the IANA registries that were created by RFC 5451. I think it's reasonable to > allow for reports for any authentication type listed in: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xml > > And then result codes would come from: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email-auth.xml
I agree. > There is a bit of a problem here that the registry doesn't match the RFC 4408 > results exactly (fail versus hardfail). That's a bit unfortunate, but the > train has left the station. I think this draft should match 5451 > terminology. An erratum was opened against RFC5451 about this too. Maybe this would be a good time to update the registry accordingly. > The only SPF faliure type that I think needs to be broken out is temperror. > For that type you want the DNS RCODE and query type (TXT versus SPF) and the > domain name being looked up to support trouble shooting. I think that this is > probably true for all DNS based auth methods. > > I don't think another IANA registry is needed. Agree here too. > I'd like to see this draft add a method independent response for temperror (as > above) that should serve for any auth method. > > I'd like to see 3.2 have an SPF specific requirement for including the > record(s) used to process the message. Can you propose some text changes? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
