Skip to main content

A Property Types Registry for the Authentication-Results Header Field
RFC 7410

Yes

(Barry Leiba)
(Pete Resnick)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-10-15)
I'm curious to see the response to Stephen's question, if that's possible, it may be a good way to handle security issues that may arise with new ptypes.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-10-13)
I wondered if it'd be worthwhile asking that the
designated expert try ensure that the security and privacy
consequences of new entries also be documented?  That's
assuming there are cases where the header field is likely
to transit between ADMDs. I'm not sure if that's really
needed though, but 7001 does have a fairly significant set
of security considerations, so presumably new entries
might also deserve a similar level of documentation. OTOH,
I could buy that experience with 7001 means that this
isn't really needed or that demanding that level of
documentation might be counterproductive.

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()