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 IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG 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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG 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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()