Last Call Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-04
review-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-04-opsdir-lc-woolf-2014-08-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-08-01
Requested 2014-07-14
Draft last updated 2014-08-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Peter Yee (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Suzanne Woolf (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suzanne Woolf
State Completed
Review review-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-04-opsdir-lc-woolf-2014-08-05
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-08-05

Review
review-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-04-opsdir-lc-woolf-2014-08-05

Hi,

Per the boilerplate….

"I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate’s ongoing 

effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments 

were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.  

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other 

last call comments.

”

This is a brief, straightforward document and I believe it provides adequate guidance to implementers that it will serve to enhance interoperability, as intended.

Mail policy handling is of course extremely controversial but I found the shepherd’s writeup helpful in understanding the specific issues around this document and how they were resolved. It appears to allow flexibility to implementers who want to use these codes without requiring anything in particular of those who don’t. Specifically, it appears to allow more information about mail policy to anyone who wants to deploy now, while deferring extensions that might be applicable to DMARC to that WG.

Whatever your feelings regarding proper mail handling policy, this looks useful in allowing operators to signal whatever it is they do in more detail.

Suzanne