[dmarc-ietf] AD review draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-02

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 19CBC130ED9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:56:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 M2JhjiZDlGZg for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C69E130FCB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 05:56:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1551275803; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=86z56JD9/ybNfWF0q0B6zjey5y15Ew8KFXcbKzOIBSU=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=iw9Ktf/2PpieYHW07H3eUBnvxj61+9T+oMKPNOlojGMemY3YU/TL0CxpqA9jtfTCGy+JN1 G0ycANoZ/6BPHTKRIlji7aAXoMBqkBODbVAmekj9mFWwJmtknmP7y6JoahYftuIfjInQbB qYh/Ko0ojjlZ6BP2tRoHUo3Ko6q2Nos=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <XHaXGgBUXpbG@statler.isode.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:56:42 +0000
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <d8ab4dc7-4bd8-4333-12e7-1ff9d894145b@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:56:25 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/R_EnT2f5mEdO09YWBUqn6krYGjI>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] AD review draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-02
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, 27 Feb 2019 13:56:46 -0000

Hi all,

This document is in a good shape, but I have a couple of minor things 
that I would like to see fixed before initiating IETF LC:

4.  SPF and internationalized mail

    SPF macros %s and %l expand the local-part of the sender's mailbox.
    If the local-part contains non-ASCII characters, terms that include
    %s or %l do not match anything.  (Note that unlike U-labels, there is
    no way to rewrite non-ASCII local parts into ASCII.)

The SPF RFC is using %{s} and %{p}, so I appreciate if the text above is 
updated appropriately.


5.  DKIM and internationalized mail


    dkim-safe-char        =  %x21-3A / %x3C / %x3E-7E / %x80-FF
                         ; '!' - ':', '<', '>' - '~', non-ASCII

Addition of UTF-8 is not precise enough and will encourage buggy 
implementations. So please replace the last alternative "%x80-FF" with:

  UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4

UTF8-2          = <Defined in Section 4 of RFC 3629>

UTF8-3          = <Defined in Section 4 of RFC 3629>

UTF8-4          = <Defined in Section 4 of RFC 3629>

So RFC 3629 would be another normative reference.

Thank you,

Alexey