Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: Proposed charter spiff to accept EAI clarification within email authentication stack

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
>