A Property Types Registry for the Authentication-Results Header Field
RFC 7410
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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