Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
RFC 5451
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 20 and is now closed.
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
> "CFWS" is as defined in section 3.2.3 of [MAIL]. I believe that should be section 3.2.2.
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
I can not find evidence on any IETF mailing list of any consensus to publish this.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
Support Dan/Peters discuss
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
In the Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan, he said that one thing was unclear. He wanted to know how the MUA would convey the results to the user. For example, using the case C.5 from the appendix, what would the user actually see (Success indication, Failure indication, or something else)? Is this field used more as input for filters rather than communicating authentication information to the user? How is the authenticity of the sender established?
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection