Re: [dmarc-ietf] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-03

Kurt Andersen <> Thu, 14 March 2019 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEAD131058 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4luvolnK8ZM9 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 114F0130DC2 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e24so6914047itl.1 for <>; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JkWUY/LgtDC6g2jFlAeoOQBWFXXJPV5GJaLlCvmSRc0=; b=YenNb6Am3apuqbeKMCgOKHfifwVzRZKOWWkATKbDjE8r2tNSGvkzMBv9WYhXDVI0fJ YREt2wPOJNNl+UVSmTyXHdtzlHwC8AmsEh4bWkIMREg/+aWj7RXYZRc8f2uogRr2wPzo KkwjJdKVAbyXTuyOSsoJGmrEbD+KxGx7q3BbI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JkWUY/LgtDC6g2jFlAeoOQBWFXXJPV5GJaLlCvmSRc0=; b=nn5r8X5H1AxF1rZB1AP5upuACjdGEzKPTYsTYUEY76GtInY3ByuOq2ZnFNBtVjyyHl HXJphbAK4OLq8z06KxPeSAXFJwE5Y0QCMEddhia8plzdjK9f8/dYBpY7MSr1o4j5gh+x KW5YoEj7zz1CeTKpH3wlRLmjSTwb5FAzUhLGzYjHyMbZmGwW6FGX83taV/0dmFWnxTKc FyXED4hQGYKLcsuCMiNxe0EvZdtdA2ncmbeuZRsJou7Ckn6/Rpo8FYhM9WFzLIGtSVKb aLyBRmPZaV/3IfeTw5XwSnyA7bWsLMsoIkEujGh5jfYL7jyauHYckLJUGh0BSEC9NsxC sRvg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhL7+fOy2sflF22xH+DKaovJRJd8eWJ0iXVfAVli3Lq8iWGBIx NhrHvFXUHfFsd6G+tTxzEm+Hq6eLjhXUBRqSU/wmhqTo
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwfi4DvB+YQ5g5k2zyR47stVcQTFeOH1tIlHyZHWOfZ6pFr/X26PysrBDhI6Eik8GuxgCKmucFhMlsy8SVISOE=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:2812:: with SMTP id h18mr264102ith.173.1552595918071; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kurt Andersen <>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 13:38:02 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_D=C3=BCrst?= <>
Cc:, "" <>,, IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d69ac058413e8c4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] I18ndir last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 20:38:53 -0000

Replying to one question posed below. Eliding the other content...

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:55 AM Martin Dürst via Datatracker <> wrote:

> Reviewer: Martin Dürst
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> I am the assigned Internationalization Directorate (i18ndir) reviewer for
> this
> draft. Harald Alvestrand and Pete Resnik contributed to this review.
> <elided>

> Major/intermediate issues:
> =========================
> The Abstract mentions the Authentication-Results header field, but the
> text doesn't.
> Section 4, %{s} and %{l} macros in SPF: The draft says that these cannot
> be used for local parts that contain non-ASCII characters. This may be
> enough for this draft, but is this a problem that should be fixed in the
> longer term? How widely are %{s} and %{l} macros used currently?

Based on a dataset that is currently a couple of years old, surveying about
12M domains that were in current use at that time, there were 75 using the
%{s} macro and 139 using %{l}. So I think it's a safe generalization to say
that they are not widely used. From a cursory inspection, it appears that
the general use case is for logging anomalies through query records
employing the "exists" SPF mechanism.

--Kurt Andersen