> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Cohesion of authfailure-report, was Split of > dkim-reporting draft > > I respect the WG decision. However, I'd recommend that the discussion > of the meaning of r, rf, and ri be factored in the authfailure-report > anyway, as it's not yet final and updating it separately in four > occurrences would be a nuisance.
It seems to me there could be an authentication method declared later that doesn't want to support a reporting format other than "arf", or for which a reporting interval doesn't make any sense, so I don't think it's useful to make them universally-defined properties. However, I suspect a section in the authfailure-report draft suggesting that future extensions will probably need <some set of properties here, including at least a reporting address>, as advisory text only, would not be harmful. > Currently, authfailure-report > proposes an exponential growth of the interval, while the other two > drafts account for three slightly different definitions of ri. I don't see the text you're referencing here about exponential growth in authfailure-report. Can you point me to it? I suppose it would be nice if all of the "ri" definitions had identical behavior (and I think they currently do), but I don't see a reason to require it. > In no > case it is specified how a stateless verifier should behave. Since participation in these extensions is not mandatory, I imagine one electing to honor what "ri" says can't be stateless, by definition. -MSK [participant] _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
