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

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:55:44 -0700

Adrian Farrel 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no objeciton to the publication of this document. 

Here are two small editorial points you may want to consider.

---

Whenever I see an Abstract like this one (and the corresponding 
paragraph in the Introduction) I wonder how it will read as an RFC 
rather than as an Internet-Draft.  

As part of an I-D it is fine to say "there is at present..."
but in five years time, when you read the RFC it will seem really odd.

Why not go for the more simple statement...

   This document registers code points to allow status codes to be 
   returned to an email client to indicate that a message is being
   rejected of deferred specifically because of email authentication
   failures.

---

I would prefer that the Abstract also indicated how this document 
updates RFC 7208. Thus...

   This document updates RFC 7208 to register code points to allow
   status codes to be returned to an email client to indicate that a
   message is being rejected of deferred specifically because of email 
   authentication failures.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:59:13 -0700

>    rejected of deferred specifically because of email authentication
Fine with me.

>    message is being rejected of deferred specifically because of email

Something like this would be fine with me, but SPF isn't the only affected
protocol, so I'd probably just copy (or almost copy) the sentence at the
end of Section 1 into the Abstract.  Good enough?

-MSK

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 18:30:43 +0100

Yes, please make the correct change, not just the one I dreamed up from my limited understanding.
 
A
 
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 04 August 2014 17:59
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; SM; IETF Apps Discuss
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-05: (with COMMENT)

 
Fine with me.

 
Something like this would be fine with me, but SPF isn't the only affected protocol, so I'd probably just copy (or almost copy) the sentence at the end of Section 1 into the Abstract.  Good enough? 
-MSK