> X.Y.Z. Definition and Registration of Method-Specific Extensions > > The IANA maintains a registry of Email Authentication Methods > along with their possible results. A "method-specific extension" > extends an authentication method by providing for the possibility > to report its result using the ARF format specified in this > document. Any such extension must specify: > > * which method(s) it addresses; > > * which result(s) of the addressed method(s) deserve being > reported; > > * a list of one or more keywords to be used in the Auth-Failure > field when reporting such results; and > > * the location and the syntax of the report parameters whose > semantic content is described in Section U.V.W. > > In addition, a method-specific extension may define further ARF > header fields. In case it does so, it shall also define the > corresponding updates to ARF header field names in its IANA > Considerations section. > > Section U.V.W would discuss r, rf, and ri, and possibly mention ro and rs too. > Not how they are syntactically encoded, just what they mean. > > Does the above make sense? > So your saying it needs a rewrite - it was really meant to be a fairly simple straightforward way to report auth failures in a useable way i.e. extending what arf/marf already do - does it not to that in your opinion? Or are you looking for it to do something else.
The current report format defined in [ARF] lacks some specific features required to do effective sender authentication reporting. This section defines extensions to ARF to accommodate this requirement. > >> B The splitting is fine as it is, although not in a "normal > >> form". It is extremely unlikely that "iprev" or any other > >> method will ever need a failure reporting mechanism. The > >> sooner we go to testing and deploying, the better. > > > > ?not in a normal form? > > "Normal" in the sense of orthogonal or perpendicular; that is, having > independent semantics along the "axes". Basically, I mean loosely coupled > with the method extensions. It is meant to be specific - I don't think "loosely" is a good track _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
