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

Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de> Mon, 30 March 2020 21:08 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 BA3AA3A124C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:08:30 -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 i-1Q76IxxbA0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scalar.arcsin.de (scalar.arcsin.de [185.162.250.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE70F3A124A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=arcsin.de; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-language:content-type :content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:date:message-id:from :from:references:subject:subject:x-amavis-category; s=dkim01; t= 1585602505; x=1587416906; bh=UiUNGBmAsWtg964tNU0OecVZCL60YntbZG2 JiSNunz4=; b=DrZPuGle0TJX23tIwf3REL9F5A8cvSwqQboXfEKVtmGG9aMAnDv O3V99PlweBO7Yju+wPEYX3uneJA1dGG4+Iq6WipVx2wX476a4esXbnkHPDs4WrMw dHUWckh5oUOma97aq9WF1hktCgS6oWBkaMSTcl8/5o79/ZplSl1TD4tE=
X-Amavis-Category: scalar.arcsin.de; category=CleanTag
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <a333cd90-06be-4ac8-b571-ac0f3ebaefee@arcsin.de> <CABa8R6tTPAtEyPRSGbWKafZVZ4u8v8sN1VpTpMLQCia2_+5zRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de>
Message-ID: <7b6dc3b0-37a9-3e20-00e3-420216c6c882@arcsin.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:09:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABa8R6tTPAtEyPRSGbWKafZVZ4u8v8sN1VpTpMLQCia2_+5zRg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jpNWL_QXptzfzBWA2LndAsqQhrM>
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 21:08:31 -0000

> 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.