Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:30:55 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
	Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03.txt
	Pages           : 42
	Date            : 2013-05-20

Abstract:
   This document specifies a header field for use with electronic mail
   messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts.
   Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents
   (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a
   convenient and meaningful way to users, or make sorting and filtering
   decisions.

   This document is a candidate for Internet Standard status.  [RFC
   Editor: Please delete this notation, as I imagine it will be
   indicated some other way.]

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:31:45 -0700

>         Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03.txt

This incorporates the last of the WGLC feedback, including reverting the
ABNF change that introduced a backward compatibility issue.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:10:28 -0400

On Monday, May 20, 2013 09:31:45 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >  This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working
> > 
> > Group of the IETF.
> > 
> >         Title           : Message Header Field for Indicating Message
> > 
> > Authentication Status
> > 

Thanks.  That does resolve the concern.

It does looke like you, however, added a note about adding the ABNF change you 
just removed on page 41:

 o ABNF: separate the authserv-id from the spec version with a "/"

These two editorial comments against -02 still appear to apply:

Comments:

>    At the time of publication of this document, Author Domain Signing
>    Practices ([ADSP]), SMTP Service Extension for Authentication
>    ([AUTH]), DomainKeys Identified Mail Signatures ([DKIM])>, Sender
>    Policy Framework ([SPF]), and Vouch-By-Reference ([VBR]) are
>    published DNS domain-level email authentication methods in common
>    use.  DomainKeys ([DOMAINKEYS]) and Sender ID ([SENDERID] are also
>    referenced here, though they respectively have "Historic" and
>    "Experimental" status, and are no longer common.

I've also seen iprev in the wild and it's supported by the python authres 
module I helped develop.  We've also implemented DMARC based on the latest 
draft.  Iprev is in 5451, so I think it should be mentioned.

>    Although SPF defined a header field called "Received-SPF" and
>    DomainKeys defined one called "DomainKey-Status" for this purpose,
>    those header fields are specific to the conveyance of their
>    respective results only and thus are insufficient to satisfy the
>    requirements enumerated below.  In addition, many SPF implementations
>    have adopted the header field specified below, and DomainKeys has
>    been obsoleted by DKIM.

I think this overstates things with respect to SPF.  Most implementations have 
not adopted authres and even in the cases where they have, it's an option, not 
the default.

Scott K

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 May 2013 17:32:36 -0000

>ABNF change that introduced a backward compatibility issue.

I'm confused. The -04 draft still says:

authres-header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id
              [ [CFWS] "/" [CFWS] version ]
              ( [CFWS] ";" [CFWS] "none" / 1*resinfo ) [CFWS] CRLF

The slash is still there and the CFWS before it is still optional.
Was there some other compatibility issue?

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:44:10 -0400

> Was there some other compatibility issue?

Now I'm confused.  I see -03 as that latest and it says:

     authres-header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id
              [ [CFWS] authres-version ]
              ( [CFWS] ";" [CFWS] "none" / 1*resinfo ) [CFWS] CRLF
            ; the special case of "none" is used to indicate that no
            ; message authentication is performed

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:50:46 -0700

> Was there some other compatibility issue?

-04?  The latest is -03, and it doesn't have the "/" anymore:

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 10:51:28 -0700

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>wrote:

> [...]

Sorry, yes.  I was focused on dealing with the ABNF concern and forgot
about these two things.  I'll put up another revision shortly that takes
care of them.  Thanks for the followup.

-MSK

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 May 2013 14:37:55 -0400

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-03

Oops, bitten by version creep.  "Never mind".

Now that I have read the actual -03, it looks fine.  The changes satisfy 
the issues I raised.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.