Subject: [apps-discuss] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:56:24 -0700

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No objection to the publication of this document, but I have one comment
that I would like considered.

It may be useful to provide an explicit link to the IANA registry being
updated.  That could easily be done by including
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes in the IANA
Considerations section.  It would also be clearer of section 6 referred
to the SMTP Enumerated Status Codes registry rather than the SMTP
Enhanced Status Code Registry.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 10:00:21 -0700

> Enhanced Status Code Registry.
The former is a sub-registry of the latter, so it's probably better to name
both.

I haven't seen the URL appear in an RFC before (doesn't mean it hasn't
happened).  Has that become normal practice?

-MSK

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:39:03 -0400

> The former is a sub-registry of the latter, so it's probably better to name

That would be fine, though the URI would be sufficient to identify the
main registry.

> happened).  Has that become normal practice?

They're all over the place; sometimes they're used, and sometimes
they're not.  5226bis actually suggest using them, to make it
absolutely clear what registry you want -- and I suppose it also makes
it easier for readers to find the registry.

When we use them, we have to be sure to use the right one, which IANA
says won't change.  Brian gave the correct one.

Barry