[mail-vet-discuss] Authentication vs. Authorization

[Tony Hansen]

I know that for us, if the name of the header were to change at this
late time, we would *NOT* be able to change our implementation to match
for probably another 6-12 months.

So personally, here's a -1 for making such a change at this time.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> An issue has been raised regarding the name of the proposed header 
> field.  Some of the methods supported by the draft are specifically 
> message authorization and not authentication (e.g. SPF, Sender-ID) and 
> there's a concern that this might mislead some consumers of the header 
> field's contents.  Do others concur, or is it not something about which 
> to be concerned?
> 
> Because of the existing installed base of code doing this work, 
> splitting the header field into two (one for authentication and one for 
> authorization) seems like it would work but something easier could be done.
> 
> Perhaps we could take advantage of a lexical coincidence and rename it 
> to "Auth-Results", specifying in the draft that it covers both 
> authentication results and authorization results.  Would that work?
> 
> Are there other suggestions?