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

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 375043A133B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 cPJEIA4H4CWo for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92b.google.com (mail-ua1-x92b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92b]) (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 CD7C93A133A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92b.google.com with SMTP id m18so6865153uap.9 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6SKY+o2HWha1Wxak0FhN1QDB3VV5zLMVwelawMjDLsg=; b=XRNcXl4q+5HLUiLZPfA3YLU7uHEOMv87wE0djA4trdhDvJdbDG0eIrJQ6YCgcATW21 VJowEJ/i423pbKirncc4KSYwZmXIZxTF0FWyGdJLUWXyPigdGSEYNdvPeuK5Z3qadEFV xQtyihU4ZJoms+AUJlETWIPh9UYoV7AH2DPXTgh3fDbk6WkLuiucDJqk/c69zfv217Wh DHEO08O2Dm0NHXB0Ii3zuqZKl1uylaBvn7IrBq1smA6iIQQH3bDteBcW1v3UXd7RAQVu mbKs6ZK9+2XiGsAS9kYjWISbfxCmrShVXgtkcLvyviO9T1g+ztjgULnbFar4uC1oXW8s KkNA==
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=6SKY+o2HWha1Wxak0FhN1QDB3VV5zLMVwelawMjDLsg=; b=MAxFbOiU3aIn0KsnZsF6LHJ5inu+c3fJsait5U30xE82PT4yYpuAVaP7hLUmvZoqC4 FW+1NbOu93QqYwuVzGx7l6oAp3CCb9audnwXBAgtzfkxT9qVWUPf+SznjNdTFDu34E6d igMXXgNK5awboS0r6W8VNyFOm15R4DQGNM6a1mHSyODq6EJEPmV3DQsMtbYbu1O25FLf Sp8l438ShXdY0fB+OjeOAA8caFiUkVZ6k78E4SHT5VaaEQ91De6DFzkv2bydvalR2LSR qCykwYqW/wkFASUz52BQ2RspFGgfTKp91soHe4feIJmO8uiTQPsrBsg3XEhzsufqh0eo KWtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYM+XXcoChHisfVNwlwILcAbmtF7KJQcguOnvOwpU2Omi0avB/6 7eEsPJRORJ4x1g4qU9kQEcYqH0qw7QI9Nql/eleRTCo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKc3TC5+MK37flD3z2uKdXOvUKd9nQiV2fWdjpepqdT4VBPkjTnXismA9hSVOTLycqqHh35+kZAJYpyLgPp43k=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:750c:: with SMTP id m12mr9269548uap.31.1585602843382; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a333cd90-06be-4ac8-b571-ac0f3ebaefee@arcsin.de> <CABa8R6tTPAtEyPRSGbWKafZVZ4u8v8sN1VpTpMLQCia2_+5zRg@mail.gmail.com> <7b6dc3b0-37a9-3e20-00e3-420216c6c882@arcsin.de>
In-Reply-To: <7b6dc3b0-37a9-3e20-00e3-420216c6c882@arcsin.de>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:13:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABa8R6tUqNBsvJL3357+Bz_76yU+Dasd23iFKs44yjw97uq-rQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003cab2905a218ee4e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/a5Nq5hPi4Wzp1Gvok80U_FMQs0A>
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: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:14:06 -0000

if your admd is an IDN, and you had to include that in 5322, then
specifying to do so in punycode would make sense.

Just including it in double quotes in a 5322 message would not be correct,
so then you're down to which mechanism to use, I don't think 2045-style
would be correct... or 2231.

But yes, as its not specified as a domain or domain-like, it would be odd
to specify a domain encoding.

Brandon

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:08 PM Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de> wrote:

> > Hmm, we didn't include this in RFC 8616 either, I could imagine that it
> > should be punycoded also, though it really depends on whether in 6532 or
> > 5322.
> Why punycoded? Section 2.5 does not specify that it needs to be a domain
> name, even though it usually is.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>