Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hunk at "page 17, line 44":
>
> Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end
> of
> the new paragraph.  Something like, "Additionally, [RFC8463] added a new
> signing algorithm in DKIM, ed25519-sha256 and it is also useful to be able
> to
> distinguish such signatures to identify cryptographic algorithm specific
> failures."
>
> That would also need a new informative reference to RFC 8463.
>

I'll take Alexey's direction here, but I'm uneasy adding new references and
text like this after IESG Review.

Hunk at "page 18, line 32":
>
> "Note that in an EAI-formatted message, the "mailfrom" value can be
> expressed
> in UTF-8."
>
> Isn't it more correct to say that the local part of the "mailfrom" value
> can
> be expressed in UTF-8?  The domain part is still a U-label as I understand
> it.
> The text as written is literally correct since the entire mailfrom is
> valid
> UTF-8, but I'm afraid it may be misleading.  As written, I could see it
> causing confusion relative to the guidance in Section 5.
>
> Hunk at "page 21, line 21":
>
> Same comment re UTF-8.
>
> Hunk at "page 22, line 4":
>
> Someone who has read the VBR RFC recently enough to remember should check
> and
> see if my UTF-8 comment applies here nor not.  I'm not sure either way.
>

I'm less concerned about making these adjustments since they're just
refinements, so, done.

-MSK