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

Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com> Mon, 05 November 2018 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@sethblank.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 A439112008A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 8ULG8m17PeT5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (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 509CD127133 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id j202-v6so8242425oih.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:53:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sethblank-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1UDGA87pwygtRdN6BeXw/zGZU+y9wQ/+a4UXEEhwn9Q=; b=THjYPhhxzH7G54ZaVbdqgcC/YZFcQKgJE8ChDi261SideC9K+b61qO/9dMx9oTyeAb FzjF5iBu2YOespQiWlW74spQMgPxwALZ/sRLrjqlMuMREPLCbh7Mz9kykV7VlZ4dTtKV D08YfRPPbpOvvhoBzYBjgUDP9cBPM2MB2bb3PjtCs0aFwEDJGehG43d6mJ0wo1+WHCIH GP9mgI/sFpOl1P4/lOC8Nxtj54qPRg8721mNHGRZEXkhgmXnUS8a0wSslY5BqK5NVwdB iJLFnJ3EAifvT70n9E7XI77yLGxnMud0SA/AvNYJSSeEmgdtBzqLo+mWhae/wN+BiieF 4sAA==
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; bh=1UDGA87pwygtRdN6BeXw/zGZU+y9wQ/+a4UXEEhwn9Q=; b=PKjsWKO+751bZr4ZO5TL0jL7dAVrw0Ewo/gpZYe/4zX3JctFYM8KcaIAld+jQldJ+d KVfu9fukC5n/Ew6FO8XT4oJtw3FTf0djCkekD3zEDjtt5bl5pQQZw5HkZaN0FuNM4O7t AjgXnwTZvSOyCjiZ0karTFqzSD8Ay1X+VFv0IwDan1XbBB5Uqb609i2E8+wi9/PmAThV zWHS8GCwWwGm6KCcHeTlRYpGLs5SMpGy9I/38STTaR4S3oGnSX4rMswQ0/MQfJmZPqnT FUiaMLK8bAWaYI9YG1qxyyDa45ikrC2z0cPRw90whb/mI8lKQ+nowoGlb2cWsST+QDH2 eJvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKJdlL19yiHa8WvbckvcyrTbt8V4VaShcT19QZC90y+2M8usaBJ Rkqxm0xwFOxUTswf349ZxALqls1rQpkd9BS6ZeKHceid
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dr/TfWQ8CzSkHrGfLD+ikBnaKEz+QENPGOhZH03oJqX3SCwe+Iky0979fF5McbSBY+KM46MCpAVjuqstgils8=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:dd42:: with SMTP id u63-v6mr12544269oig.306.1541440399885; Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:53:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABuGu1qC=Hwu=2zzmApHKQ68H-X0UmLBZnvzABeXAfD_A4F6TQ@mail.gmail.com> <2393746.3XrAvFVKfY@kitterma-e6430> <CABuGu1oQLCmmuKhfFZdgq9tmN-GOpCLikmu4OpN3MyAv3whw4g@mail.gmail.com> <5694407E-6D84-4266-93DE-21FB90D803B2@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <5694407E-6D84-4266-93DE-21FB90D803B2@kitterman.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@sethblank.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:53:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD2i3WMxf6=gxySKoU=5fKrmsvfC=rpHoppJwUtvRXAjwcX7uQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a60c40579ee8fa2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/nm8NbD-XluuUjaGaDItWFROaOw0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed charter spiff to accept EAI clarification within email authentication stack
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, 05 Nov 2018 17:53:24 -0000

I think MSK’s text with Kitterman’s caveat cleanly carved out for
interoperability regressions is the optimal charter update.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 00:14 Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:

>
>
> On November 5, 2018 3:21:15 AM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
> wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:11 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, November 05, 2018 10:01:03 AM Kurt Andersen wrote:
> >> > I think that we could possibly already read this into the existing
> >> charter,
> >> > but the following one sentence patch makes it explicit:
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/dmarc-wg-charter b/dmarc-wg-charter
> >> > index a1d0fac..c8ac6bc 100644
> >> > --- a/dmarc-wg-charter
> >> > +++ b/dmarc-wg-charter
> >> > @@ -81,6 +81,9 @@ the working group can consider extending the base
> >DMARC
> >> > specification
> >> >  to accommodate such a standard, should it be developed during the
> >> >  life of this working group.
> >> >
> >> > +Clarifying the handling of internationalized email addresses (EAI)
> >> > +throughout the authentication stack of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.
> >> > +
> >> >  Improvements in DMARC features (identifier alignment, reporting,
> >> >  policy preferences) will be considered, such as:
> >> >
> >> > --Kurt
> >>
> >> I don't see anything about changes to SPF or DKIM being within the
> >current
> >> charter, so if we are going to do this, then I think it definitely
> >needs a
> >> charter change.
> >>
> >> What needs changing in SPF/DKIM that we need to take this on?
> >>
> >
> >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
>