Email Authentication Status Codes
RFC 7372
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes
As someone who has had to debug SPF-related mail failures, I approve this message.
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
I have no objeciton to the publication of this document. Here are two small editorial points you may want to consider. --- Whenever I see an Abstract like this one (and the corresponding paragraph in the Introduction) I wonder how it will read as an RFC rather than as an Internet-Draft. As part of an I-D it is fine to say "there is at present..." but in five years time, when you read the RFC it will seem really odd. Why not go for the more simple statement... This document registers code points to allow status codes to be returned to an email client to indicate that a message is being rejected of deferred specifically because of email authentication failures. --- I would prefer that the Abstract also indicated how this document updates RFC 7208. Thus... This document updates RFC 7208 to register code points to allow status codes to be returned to an email client to indicate that a message is being rejected of deferred specifically because of email authentication failures.
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
No objection to the publication of this document, but I have one comment that I would like considered. It may be useful to provide an explicit link to the IANA registry being updated. That could easily be done by including http://www.iana.org/assignments/smtp-enhanced-status-codes in the IANA Considerations section. It would also be clearer of section 6 referred to the SMTP Enumerated Status Codes registry rather than the SMTP Enhanced Status Code Registry.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- Since only one code is returned and since the client has to assume that other failures may have happened in parallel, and since the X.7.20 code covers two different things (i.e. (a) and (b) from 3.1), did the wg consider splitting out 3.1's (a) and (b) into different codes? That way the 3.1.a code would conform to 6376 and the 3.1.b code would be "failed my local DKIM specifics." Seems to me that splitting those out might be better but I'm fine if this was considered and rejected (i.e. no need to re-do the reason for rejecting, just tell me it happened and that'll be fine). - The intro could make the X.7.nn notation clearer, but it becomes blatently obvious if one reads 5248 so its ok unless you want to be extra-nice to the reader.