Re: [dmarc-ietf] Does EAI doc need to flag SPF macro implications more explicitly? (was: Proposed charter spiff ...)

Excellent, thanks for the clarification.

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:18 PM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

> When I wrote that, several months ago, I was concerned there might be an
> incompatible update.  I don't see any problems with the draft as it
> currently
> stands, so no issue.  What's there describes things correctly.
>
> Scott K
>
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:27:36 AM Kurt Andersen wrote:
> > I think that Seth is referring to Scott's "merely" designation:
> >
> > It doesn't appear that it proposes any changes for SPF.  It merely
> >
> > > documents that non-ascii local parts don't match the related macros.
> > > During the SPFbis working group we looked at this and explicitly
> decided
> > > on
> > > it.  It's not by accident.
> > > Since local part macros are very rarely used, it seemed like very much
> a
> > > corner case not worth it to break the installed base over.
> >
> > rather than the charter change itself. I did not read this as something
> > that needed to change in the document unless Scott is looking for bold
> > flashing lights around it :-)
> >
> > --Kurt
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:17 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure charter adjustments are independent of WGLC (which is
> to
> > > say don't hold up one with the other).
> > >
> > > -MSK
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:09 AM Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
> wrote:
> > >> Scott, does this need to be addressed during WGLC for
> > >> draft-levine-eaiauth?
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > >> From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
> > >> Date: Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:14 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed charter spiff to accept EAI
> > >> clarification within email authentication stack
> > >> To: Kurt Andersen (b) <kboth@drkurt.com>
> > >> Cc: dmarc@ietf.org <dmarc@ietf.org>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On November 5, 2018 3:21:15 AM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)"
> > >> <kboth@drkurt.com>
> > >>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >This came out of this morning's DISPATCH meeting at IETF103 (
> > >> >https://tools.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/agenda) to be able to accept
> > >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth into
> the
> > >> >WG
> > >> >for advancing it to an RFC (probably informational).
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.  It doesn't appear that it proposes any changes for SPF.  It
> > >> merely documents that non-ascii local parts don't match the related
> > >> macros.  During the SPFbis working group we looked at this and
> explicitly
> > >> decided on it.  It's not by accident.
> > >>
> > >> Since local part macros are very rarely used, it seemed like very
> much a
> > >> corner case not worth it to break the installed base over.
> > >>
> > >> If there's going to be a charter change around this, I think it needs
> > >> some words to constrain the work to limit interoperability
> implications.
> > >>
> > >> I know less about the implications for DKIM and DMARC, but would
> imagine
> > >> backward compatibility is important there too.
> > >>
> > >> Scott K
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> dmarc mailing list
> > >> dmarc@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> dmarc mailing list
> > >> dmarc@ietf.org
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dmarc mailing list
> > > dmarc@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>