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

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

Barry Leiba Yes

(Pete Resnick) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-13)
No email
send info
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.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-15)
No email
send info
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) No Objection