Return-Path: 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 0216C130F7E for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:17:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Foy2GjmgPWPz for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35483130F1B for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:17:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id t18-v6so21683245ljd.4 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:17:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2k1+eYCgd2HgR5FIw+b1LIaoXq2FxDiJcSuMQqXfeLI=; b=sV/eGRCiL4zTH+Svoe++UrjAVwBTe5R0Eu8TO+nbQFxMeisg80qDBj2+64OLzCGFIv ZmFIo8WwJlFPQc6q9lSLzJ3redBqkz03E5CFQ6hhfaWz0336L2waHbUmTRs1et26y2F6 PTi+OsLfb1WL64kVadgvp1nVmeiu1zUySItBJdHd3avoj3PI8v+esvbri6kMmuW8ZN7a 748o6qyfLSoAWOemWieO6pZZploGsQ7mjZvoHI5kfNoZQ0M0c16VK02/r3m8vCZBUD2H 8vHKV1Ka5FDrhdKnxkdyfDXHb4sGS4dhl/3JODPqQy4FOG9bI0Fo3uG3Tk6U3Zt9g7hq ut9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2k1+eYCgd2HgR5FIw+b1LIaoXq2FxDiJcSuMQqXfeLI=; b=jtpriSkQxPKwXTc5uKFCgKnkDY4Z0OzyNifOeIris4IjlNE4CU3eCmDpZWJNijdtJC zftBjb1c9NF31zE3cHDYSX8Xv/ivuNURP8a+mXDKmpUJ6YGZhurQCcJnB/C20Ij1BWQI J27WsYBuCGeQ0+jVBDFJNUC+fwJTGFv9b5AN7N+nmBZ3ZOnpH75dgWAg5WexaZ3rZZrM /jcB/4YPtUaN2fFgEUG0/YOKfuiwegh+gIxE1lmYUzx3dpUjb5IoeKeGT84mzSjdWwbD Q+wjZTX118TmgEp9PwII4XURCFrudWN2qUTsP9ogMU1glKz5stDnZCxxvnz5qBazF9Xv vofQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukf+SMO/9RU3oHU6APgyBdxkwivjeSURNIgjogumqnKsLGLH8yYF 6xyut8YVgH0ZoCAv/C2b2beFsRZtA7cr6PPB94m4iQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6UIPPJUEXADDE2PN4eV/oJHPJw+rhONG/PbfHAY8DID7Mj+CM6lnmrkRRRX94Etlf54Jk8ME2kTz4NCGqFnvY= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ad0:: with SMTP id p16-v6mr23259426ljj.102.1548184652210; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:17:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2393746.3XrAvFVKfY@kitterma-e6430> <5694407E-6D84-4266-93DE-21FB90D803B2@kitterman.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:17:19 -0800 Message-ID: To: Seth Blank Cc: IETF DMARC WG , Scott Kitterman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003def21058010d412" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: Proposed charter spiff to accept EAI clarification within email authentication stack X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:17:37 -0000 --0000000000003def21058010d412 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 wrote: > Scott, does this need to be addressed during WGLC for draft-levine-eaiauth? > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Scott Kitterman > 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) > Cc: dmarc@ietf.org > > > > > On November 5, 2018 3:21:15 AM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" > 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 > --0000000000003def21058010d412 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm pretty sure charter adjustments are independe= nt 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-eaiaut= h?

---------- Forwarded = message ---------
From: = Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Date: = Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed charter s= piff to accept EAI clarification within email authentication stack
To: K= urt 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> w= rote:
>This came out of this morning's DISPATCH meeting at IETF103 (
>https://tools.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/agenda) to be ab= le to accept
>http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft= =3Ddraft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth into the
>WG
>for advancing it to an RFC (probably informational).

Thanks.=C2=A0 It doesn't appear that it proposes any changes for SPF.= =C2=A0 It merely documents that non-ascii local parts don't match the r= elated macros.=C2=A0 During the SPFbis working group we looked at this and = explicitly decided on it.=C2=A0 It's not by accident.

Since local part macros are very rarely used, it seemed like very much a co= rner 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 s= ome words to constrain the work to limit interoperability implications.

I know less about the implications for DKIM and DMARC, but would imagine ba= ckward 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
--0000000000003def21058010d412--