IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 22 January 2019 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 F2FCC1310FD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:18:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=ROuOC93e; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=txRdsC1p
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 Ja94Xn2Alu5q for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:18:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softlayer.kitterman.com (softlayer.kitterman.com [169.62.11.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1574E1310F8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 13:18:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812e; t=1548191891; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=SLQYlYoXIhgd64pH7BqyGsko83NDK8lzWJ0YfHrXIwI=; b=ROuOC93ePOspmqIeQyp+ZKZfKm4NN0nU1fHM8lR/l9bTPIkKlm8zuGGj qF4pF2G3exOCh3Ggh96xwh5OdsEpCA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812r; t=1548191891; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=SLQYlYoXIhgd64pH7BqyGsko83NDK8lzWJ0YfHrXIwI=; b=txRdsC1peuILx53J6e8ukDSphGr2vWTnpFY+UJ4kFISoKZPjz+++Mvkg K6EZC8eupIuMQpbgfrFZWS6PGTwkwvt/0PRIT9Wd5tFH38TGSa4gfsF2L0 wvHyMnNKRRsEre2XIrxe/4//VfFto0LsBoiOfJV43I5293m4IbIIFwTidi ELOLQA3/sBX2uiMwT4ZnSMKmS02885a+jzc/kpYNEB9RJ+bfuXs4E5Tdh5 1+ZqeUwFvgmzgK4vvnvDGMZ0LrThwux9qezR3Wl8zg82m1Lk4lfoH8g58+ 0hZisDuGn2cML/kuDQj2v6pRauodkkw0Mie2x7d3Ou87uF+/O3J73g==
Received: from kitterma-e6430.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by softlayer.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9CE82D404E4 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:18:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:18:10 -0500
Message-ID: <2183408.rbh8fdV8Tg@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-164-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1qyjj7Mw7u0T6OHL73CwxCUPEDHOhsOdQpZ9r6=xGjy_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABuGu1qC=Hwu=2zzmApHKQ68H-X0UmLBZnvzABeXAfD_A4F6TQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZKB5Sd5TS-wjfO3dhMhbL2ZGca8MS7oCra+mfZEfTLXg@mail.gmail.com> <CABuGu1qyjj7Mw7u0T6OHL73CwxCUPEDHOhsOdQpZ9r6=xGjy_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jnSCyhRE3KJ_gTADxpw_FMXF5eU>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Does EAI doc need to flag SPF macro implications more explicitly? (was: Proposed charter spiff ...)
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, 22 Jan 2019 21:18:16 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email