Re: [dmarc-ietf] Does EAI doc need to flag SPF macro implications more explicitly? (was: Proposed charter spiff ...)

When I wrote that, several months ago, I was concerned there might be an 
incompatible update.  I don't see any problems with the draft as it currently 
stands, so no issue.  What's there describes things correctly.

Scott K

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:27:36 AM Kurt Andersen wrote:
> I think that Seth is referring to Scott's "merely" designation:
> 
> 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.
> 
> rather than the charter change itself. I did not read this as something
> that needed to change in the document unless Scott is looking for bold
> flashing lights around it :-)
> 
> --Kurt
> 
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:17 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmarc mailing list
> > dmarc@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc