Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:45:58 -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-08.txt
	Pages           : 47
	Date            : 2013-06-28

Abstract:
   This document specifies a message header field called Authentication-
   Results 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-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-08

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

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:28:27 -0400

On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:45:58 AM [email-masked] wrote:
> 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

It doesn't look t me like this change is correct:

	C.7. Comment-Heavy Example	
				
	The formal syntax permits comments within the content in a number of
	places. For the sake of illustration, this example is also legal:
				
	Authentication-Results: foo.example.net (foobar) 1 (baz);
	dkim (Because I like it) / 1 (One yay) = (wait for it) fail
	policy (A dot can go here) . (like that) expired
	(this surprised me) = (as I wasn't expecting it) 1362471462

	C.7. Comment-Heavy Example	
				
	The formal syntax permits comments within the content in a number of
	places. For the sake of illustration, this example is also legal:
				
	Authentication-Results: foo.example.net (foobar) 1 (baz);
	dkim (Because I like it) 1 (One yay) = (wait for it) fail
	policy (A dot can go here) . (like that) expired
	(this surprised me) = (as I wasn't expecting it) 1362471462

The ABNF says:

method = Keyword [ [CFWS] "/" [CFWS] method-version ]

So isn't the "/" mandatory with the method-version?

Scott K

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Jun 2013 19:54:48 -0000

>So isn't the "/" mandatory with the method-version?

Yes, that's a recent change to avoid ambiguity where foo1 might be a
method called foo1 or might be method foo version 1.  Looks like
Murray missed updating the example.

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:00:34 -0400

> Murray missed updating the example.

It's the other way around.  -08 removes the "/", so think it changed in 
exactly the wrong way.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:45:35 -0700

> It's the other way around.  -08 removes the "/", so think it changed in
Scott's correct; I over-undid the controversial change that got reverted.
I'll clean it up and post again.  Apologies for the noise.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:55:43 -0400

> I'll clean it up and post again.  Apologies for the noise.

Thanks.  that takes care of it.

Scott K