[mail-vet-discuss] Preview of draft-09

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

SM wrote:
> If this memo replaces the Received-SPF header, then it changes the 
> requirements on an existing protocol.
SPF is an experimental protocol.  Thus, I'm not sure this is a big 
deal.  Anyone else want to weigh in?
>
>>    For tracing and debugging purposes, the authentication identifier
>>    SHOULD be the domain name of the MTA performing the authentication
>>    check whose result is being reported.
>
> I suggest changing that to a recommendation as follows:
>
>   It is RECOMMENDED that the authentication identifier be the domain 
> name of the MTA
>   performing the authentication check to guarantee uniqueness and for 
> ease of tracing and
>   debugging.
>
> That allows the implementor to choose an authentication identifier 
> while providing some guidance.
I'm not sure I see much of a semantic difference there.  Anyone else 
want to weigh in?

>
>>    An MUA MUST ignore any result reported using a "result" or "ptype"
>>    not enumerated by this specification or a later amendment to it.
>
> I suggest using the following text.  It covers any later amendment to 
> the specification.
>
>   A MUA MUST ignore any results reported using a "result" not 
> enumerated in this
>   specification or "ptype" not in the Email Authentication Method Name 
> Registry.
Again, I'm not sure I see much of a semantic difference there.  It's 
pretty clear from reading the entire document that the only acceptable 
ptypes are those in the registry.


>
>> 8.3.  Other Protocols
>>
>> [...]
>>    It is the intention of the author to follow this proposal with drafts
>>    proposing the above two extensions.
>
> The last sentence could be a note to be removed at publication time as 
> it doesn't pertain to this draft.

Removed.

>
>> C.2.  Nearly-trivial case; service provided, but no authentication done
>>
>>    A message that was delivered by an MTA that conforms to this standard
>>    but provides no actual message authentication service:
>
> Could you use "conforms to this specification" instead of "conforms to 
> this standard" in the example cases (C2 and C3)?  It's not a standard 
> yet.

Done.