Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601

Damian Lukowski <> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F2A3A25B9 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Iel8UCJxz6Q for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B403A08D1 for <>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= content-language:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:date:message-id:from :from:references:subject:subject:x-amavis-category; s=dkim01; t= 1585676639; x=1587491040; bh=o46kqSbMyuREW0Aqr7NeFc0TV/TJmmRET8m eWLucpDc=; b=TgLvslbkG4Mtu2Yd+ZE3ZalZSaeNAw5ZKH7Sopb58qleizC54bs why9idJHAyQj/sVvtnB3SxHTRZCGVt14XJ26yeIUqpCnZWne0jZHEpcMl9mYxerJ YI53VlP5wPe2x5QhamhDsZ1TifrHp0h93l8KE+Jl87MeHemOgaCST4q4=
X-Amavis-Category:; category=CleanTag
References: <20200331165810.6148016D54F4@ary.qy>
From: Damian Lukowski <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:43:34 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200331165810.6148016D54F4@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601
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, 31 Mar 2020 17:44:04 -0000

> The intention in 8601 is pretty clear, even though the ABNF doesn't agree:

Yes, the RFC says the authserv-id can contain UTF-8, but its author
stated that he intended it to be "either a plain old ASCII domain name
or an A-label". One does not need UTF-8 for that. If authserv-id were not

> authserv-id = value


> authserv-id = token ; token from RFC2045

wouldn't the author's intent have been covered as well, without any
reference to RFC6531/6532?