> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SM > Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 4:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt > > In Section 3: > > "The current report format defined in [ARF] lacks some specific > features required to do effective sender authentication reporting." > > I don't think that "sender authentication reporting" is the > appropriate term. Please let me know if the comment is unclear and I > will expand on it.
Yes, please. In particular, do you have an alternate suggestion? > "Reported-Domain: As specified in [ARF]. This field MUST appear > exactly once." > > This is an optional field in ARF which can appear more than once. Indeed, but this is essentially creating a profile of ARF (by creating a new feedback type) for the purpose of reporting messages that fail authentication checks. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "for this profile, Reported-Domain is mandatory". > In Section 3.2.1: > > "policy: The message was not delivered to the intended inbox due > to authentication failure. The specific action taken is not > specified." > > The term "policy" is confusing. is this a "discard"? It's not specified what actually happened. The term is recycled from RFC5451, where "policy" basically means "other, per local policy configuration", such as rejecting a signature because "l=" is in use (i.e., not required by DKIM, but certainly legal at the discretion of the receiver). > In Section 3.3: > > "The DKIM-ADSP-DNS field MUST be included in the report." > > What is the DKIM-ADSP-DNS field? It's defined in 6.2. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
