On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 5:13 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, it seems the extended status codes have very limited > deployment. When I searched my recent history, I could only find codes > 2.0.0 and 2.6.0, which communicate nothing incremental. > Indeed; I would like to understand what 2.6.0 is meant to convey. As I read the IANA registry entries, "2" means success but "6" means there was a media type error. Would it be reasonable to add language saying that we RECOMMEND that > evaluators use extended status codes, for both accepted and rejected > messages, to indicate the message authentication status? We could > highlight the codes that are particularly relevant to this need. > I'm not sure about RECOMMENDED, but reminding readers of this mechanism for providing additional information seems at least harmless to me. If we say RECOMMENDED, I'd be inclined to think we should say something about both producers of these codes and consumers of them, to encourage interoperability. There's no point in making a strong push toward generating them if nobody has any incentive to do something with them when they're observed. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
