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

Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc@arcsin.de>
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 D8F2A3A25B9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arcsin.de
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 4Iel8UCJxz6Q for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:44:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sigil.arcsin.de (sigil.arcsin.de [46.38.233.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B403A08D1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=arcsin.de; 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: sigil.arcsin.de; category=CleanTag
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200331165810.6148016D54F4@ary.qy>
From: Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de>
Message-ID: <db264415-fb82-9c2a-e78a-0118ff6a4368@arcsin.de>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZJLJtrrOq0TrbbJv40wiLmv4Eek>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601
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: 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

but

> authserv-id = token ; token from RFC2045

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

Damian