Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Wed, 01 April 2020 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798123A0DD8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=W/T8CrsK; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=CbQpZeHO
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wdUtMe1bDXzK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D1D03A0DD7 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [64.20.48.66]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B38D4F80120; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1585699565; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=Z4rfQ4SZj1UWYIHvzwLJh7lL0fsJiT9S6HAEPEbgZng=; b=W/T8CrsKThcsQeNwX2XO1uRsIWT7jVIdRY4aX13EfsXVRlZe4sxnUk2l83iuBMxCNdjGp 687qjgo/NrzQpAnBg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1585699565; h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : from : message-id : from; bh=Z4rfQ4SZj1UWYIHvzwLJh7lL0fsJiT9S6HAEPEbgZng=; b=CbQpZeHOEWgsXgDwVmTZsE9FiWX/jbRc5aAdtwOMLfgb1xbbqGxz25rwvYTS24b39+HJM x1Tiiw5Ib807UPKYQA/+lnFTDvrv9kHLWmXRu4VfIzZG3t+XTrXFaTVVKYWJaqZFy+M99hE Gbo8ZgqhKG3mKvhwRs4iuQ25/b7IBxAuQjw3wGN/eo7+YqR5Vam8wnFRoLKLghWvZGhY6YS mO81t+SdwxZNxq1E9AmYvYjiUbFbO7/dhReT6yZ/2XzxsSoTIVwbTtwTP3sX4SwtvlGDGtI yvd1Dl1wEcGwSxKcgMJpfVJPuJtAx/mkd1Fx8ZYxPo6yzLk0HUMPN05xz2Cg==
Received: from [192.168.1.184] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A41DF80042; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 00:06:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20200401000000.CF67D16D8D0D@ary.qy>
References: <20200401000000.CF67D16D8D0D@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <442E06B4-79FE-4AA9-A6D8-C36C28F9C3BA@kitterman.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4026EkEO_nRy3na7Eu9E5VXmEp0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 00:06:10 -0000


On April 1, 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>In article <A02A6BEB-D253-4091-9064-3BEFE67E1D03@kitterman.com> you
>write:
>>>I don't see any reason to exclude them.  We could do this:
>>>
>>>      authserv-id     = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
>>>
>>>Where sub-domain is imported from 5321 for ASCII mail and 6531 for
>EAI
>>>mail.
>>
>>That does allow IP address literals.  Do we want that?
>
>No, take a look at RFC 5321 and search for "address-literal".  You'll
>see
>they're always an alternative to a domain.  Sub-domain is trivial:
>
>   sub-domain     = Let-dig [Ldh-str]
>
>   Ldh-str        = *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" ) Let-dig

Odd.  In RFC 6376 it's:

      domain-name     = sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)
                        ; from [RFC5321] Domain,
                        ; excluding address-literal

I wonder why it excludes address-literal if they are already excluded?

Scott K