Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: Proposed charter spiff to accept EAI clarification within email authentication stack

For avoidance of doubt:

It's draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth and no.  It's fine.

Scott K

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:08:41 AM Seth Blank 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