Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting Format
RFC 6591
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
10 | (System) | Notify list changed from marf-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2012-04-14
|
10 | (System) | RFC published |
2012-01-27
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-01-27
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-01-26
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-01-24
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2012-01-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-01-23
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2012-01-23
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-01-23
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-01-23
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation. |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 14-Jan-2012 raised two concerns. The authors and Alexey seem to have come to agreement … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 14-Jan-2012 raised two concerns. The authors and Alexey seem to have come to agreement on the appropriate changes, but they have not happened yet. 1) Please reference RFC 4648, Section 4 for base64. 2) Please update the ABNF as follows: spf-dns = "SPF-DNS:" [CFWS] ( "txt" / "spf" ) [CFWS] ":" [CFWS] domain [CFWS] ":" [CFWS] quoted-string [CFWS] CRLF |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-01-19
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-18
|
10 | Pete Resnick | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2012-01-18
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-10.txt |
2012-01-18
|
10 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Amanda Baber | Upon approval of this document, IANA will complete the following actions: ACTION 1: IANA will register the following Feedback Report Type Value at http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters Feedback … Upon approval of this document, IANA will complete the following actions: ACTION 1: IANA will register the following Feedback Report Type Value at http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters Feedback Type: auth-failure Description: email authentication failure report Published in: [this memo] Status: current ACTION 2: IANA will register the following Feedback Report Header Fields at http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters Field Name: Auth-Failure Description: Type of email authentication method failure Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: Delivery-Result Description: Final disposition of the subject message Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-ADSP-DNS Description: Retrieved DKIM ADSP record Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Body Description: Canonicalized body, per DKIM Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Header Description: Canonicalized header, per DKIM Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-Domain Description: DKIM signing domain from "d=" tag Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-Identity Description: Identity from DKIM signature Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-Selector Description: Selector from DKIM signature Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: DKIM-Selector-DNS Description: Retrieved DKIM key record Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current Field Name: SPF-DNS Description: Retrieved SPF record Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Published in: [this memo] Status: current |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] Section 2.3 states: base64 is defined in [MIME]. Well, base64 is also defined in RFC 4648. :) Perhaps it would be … [Ballot comment] Section 2.3 states: base64 is defined in [MIME]. Well, base64 is also defined in RFC 4648. :) Perhaps it would be better to say: This specification mandates use of base64 as defined in [MIME]. Section 3.1 states: Delivery-Result: As specified in Section 3.2.2. This field is OPTIONAL, but MUST NOT appear more than once. If present, it SHOULD indicate the outcome of the message in some meaningful way, but MAY be redacted to "other" for local policy reasons. I think "redacted" is not right here (causes confusion with the redaction I-D). I suggest "set". Section 3.1 also states: For privacy reasons, report generators might need to redact portions of a reported message such as the end user whose complaint action resulted in the report. A discussion of relevant issues and a suggested method for doing so can be found in [I-D.IETF-MARF-REDACTION]. I don't think you can redact an end user. :) I suggest "an identifier or address associated with the end user..." Section 6.2 states: "These reports may be forged" and "DKIM failure reports may produce reports". I suggest changing "may" to "can" and "might", respectively. Section 6.3 states: Limiting the rate of generation of these messages may be appropriate but threatens to inhibit the distribution of important and possibly time-sensitive information. Do you mean "MAY"? Section 6.5 states: The use of this for "near-identical" incidents in particular causes a degradation in reporting quality, however. If for example a large number of pieces of spam arrive from one attacker, a reporting agent may decide only to send a report about a fraction of those messages. While this averts a flood of reports to a system administrator, the precise details of each incident are similarly not sent. Do you mean "MAY"? |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 14-Jan-2012 raised two concerns. The authors and Alexey seem to have come to agreement … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by Alexey Melnikov on 14-Jan-2012 raised two concerns. The authors and Alexey seem to have come to agreement on the appropriate changes, but they have not happened yet. 1) Please reference RFC 4648, Section 4 for base64. 2) Please update the ABNF as follows: spf-dns = "SPF-DNS:" [CFWS] ( "txt" / "spf" ) [CFWS] ":" [CFWS] domain [CFWS] ":" [CFWS] quoted-string [CFWS] CRLF |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
2012-01-17
|
10 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-16
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - Section 2.4 (esp the title) is a bit odd, I'm sure its there for a reason but its not at all clear … [Ballot comment] - Section 2.4 (esp the title) is a bit odd, I'm sure its there for a reason but its not at all clear to this reader. (But I don't mind) - 3.1 - who's SOURCE-IP is meant here? Might be clear from ARP but not so clear from here - same for REPORTED-DOMAIN. Better to be crystal clear really. - 3.2.1 - the "policy" value is a bit vague, but that's ok I guess. - I'm not 100% clear about the rule for handling DKIM and redaction. Is it that the sender just chooses whether to send the unredacted possibly-DKIM-valid value or the redacted version with no DKIM info, or are you just supposed to never (as in MUST NOT) send a redacted message if the message had DKIM header fields? That might be there but I missed it if so. |
2012-01-16
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-16
|
10 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-16
|
10 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-14
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2012-01-12
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-01-12
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-01-11
|
10 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-06
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I find it a little odd that the requirements language for what's optional/required in the different reports (s3.2.*) appear in the section titles … [Ballot comment] I find it a little odd that the requirements language for what's optional/required in the different reports (s3.2.*) appear in the section titles but not in the text. |
2012-01-06
|
10 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format WG (marf) to consider the following document: - 'Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-01-18. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This memo registers an extension report type to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF), affecting multiple registries, for use in generating receipt-time reports about messages that fail one or more email message authentication checks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. This I-D normatively references Experimental RFC 4408. |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Ballot has been issued |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Last Call was requested |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Last Call Requested from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2012-01-04
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-09.txt |
2012-01-04
|
10 | Amanda Baber | IANA has one question about the registrations requested by this document. QUESTION: should the status for all these registrations be set to "current"? ACTION 1: … IANA has one question about the registrations requested by this document. QUESTION: should the status for all these registrations be set to "current"? ACTION 1: Upon approval of this document, the following feedback type will be added to the Feedback Report Type Values registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters Feedback Type: auth-failure Description: email authentication failure report Registration: (this document) ACTION 2: The following headers will be added, with this document as a reference, to the Feedback Report Header Fields registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/marf-parameters Field Name: Auth-Failure Description: Type of email authentication method failure Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: Delivery-Result Description: Final disposition of the subject message Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-ADSP-DNS Description: Retrieved DKIM ADSP record Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Body Description: Canonicalized body, per DKIM Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Header Description: Canonicalized header, per DKIM Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-Domain Description: DKIM signing domain from "d=" tag Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-Identity Description: Identity from DKIM signature Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-Selector Description: Selector from DKIM signature Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: DKIM-Selector-DNS Description: Retrieved DKIM key record Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure Field Name: SPF-DNS Description: Retrieved SPF record Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": auth-failure We understand the above to be the only IANA actions for this document. |
2012-01-04
|
10 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2012-01-03
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-08.txt |
2012-01-02
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publicaiton of this document as an RFC, but here are a few trivial nits. --- Please expand … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publicaiton of this document as an RFC, but here are a few trivial nits. --- Please expand "AF" on first use in the Abstract, and show it as the abbreviation of "Abuse Report Format" on first use in the Introduction. --- Section 3.1 Delivery-Result: As specified in Section 3.2.2. This field is OPTIONAL, but MUST NOT appear more than once. If present, it SHOULD indicate the outcome of the message in some meaningful way, but might be redacted to "other" for local policy reasons. s/might/MAY/ --- Section 3.2.2 Please expand ADMD --- Section 3.2.3 Please expand DKIM --- Section 3.2.5 Please expand ADSP --- Section 3.2.6 Please expand SPF |
2012-01-02
|
10 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2012-01-01
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2011-12-30
|
10 | Mary Barnes | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2011-12-30
|
10 | Mary Barnes | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2011-12-29
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2011-12-29
|
10 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2011-12-29
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Telechat date has been changed to 2012-01-19 from 2012-01-05 |
2011-12-28
|
10 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format WG (marf) to consider the following document: - 'Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-01-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This memo registers an extension report type to ARF, affecting multiple registries, for use in generating receipt-time reports about messages that fail one or more email authentication checks. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-01-05 |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Ballot has been issued |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Last Call was requested |
2011-12-21
|
10 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2011-12-21
|
10 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2011-12-21
|
10 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-21
|
10 | Pete Resnick | PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, … PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I (Murray Kucherawy) am the Document Shepherd. I have personally reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for IESG consideration. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been through two Working Group Last Calls, including spontaneous WG reviews and some I solicited directly. I have no concerns about any lack in coverage of those reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? I have no such concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. I have no such concerns. There are no relevant IPR disclosures of which I am aware. The document has a demonstrated need. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG as a whole has reviewed it through two WGLCs, including some specific members that I approached for reviews. The WG understands its need and the contexts in which it will be useful. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) There have been no such indications. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All such requirements have been met. No specific review criteria need to be met for this work. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document contains an appropriate normative/informative split of its references. There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-marf-redaction which is also in Working Group Last Call. It will advance to the IESG shortly. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA Considerations section is present and complete; it updates existing registries as needed by the remainder of the document. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? I have run the ABNF through a checker via the WG Chairs' tools page. Errors it found have been corrected. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This memo registers an extension report type to ARF for use in reporting messages that fail one or more authentication checks performed on receipt of a message, with the option to include forensic information describing the specifics of the failure. Working Group Summary This memo underwent two Working Group Last Calls because of the amount of last-minute feedback generated during the first. There was no controversy of note. Document Quality There is substantial deployment of ARF, upon which these extensions are based. There is one widely deployed open source implementation of the extension with more under development which will see widespread use. Reviewers and expressions of intent to support included PayPal and Hotmail. |
2011-12-19
|
10 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching. |
2011-12-16
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Ready to go once again. |
2011-12-16
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2011-12-16
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07.txt |
2011-12-13
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-06.txt |
2011-12-02
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Back to the WG to deal with last-minute feedback. |
2011-12-02
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2011-12-02
|
10 | Pete Resnick | State changed to AD is watching from Publication Requested. |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching. |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Ready to go! |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Adopted by a WG |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Adopted by a WG from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Ready to go! |
2011-12-01
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2011-12-01
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-05.txt |
2011-11-17
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | State adjust |
2011-11-17
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2011-11-17
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2011-11-17
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | WGLC completed; Hilda to post -05 with agreed changes. |
2011-11-17
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2011-11-14
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Changed protocol writeup |
2011-10-25
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2011-10-25
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | In WG Last Call until 11/11. |
2011-10-25
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared. |
2011-10-24
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-04.txt |
2011-10-11
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | New version available after WGLC comments. Awaiting consensus/acceptance of edits. |
2011-10-11
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2011-10-08
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Some last-minute WGLC feedback warrants a recycle of this document. |
2011-10-03
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2011-09-13
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | Last call started 9/13 by Barry, closing |
2011-09-13
|
10 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2011-09-08
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-02.txt |
2011-08-12
|
10 | Pete Resnick | Draft added in state AD is watching |
2011-08-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01.txt |
2011-06-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-00.txt |