Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Mon, 21 January 2019 08:20 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 1EF13130FB5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:20:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] 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=Su5f4p2Z; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=GwQR+Tmf
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 wX6kC3DF3023 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:20:17 -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 14C78130F2D for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:20:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812e; t=1548058812; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=ZxU7UQbiBjDWTj6i7H0P1jq3/isxGf7MZssTewJ4ZLg=; b=Su5f4p2Zf5WBgI7cF/1ZYZQIXLZE/QwgIk5h4WeHpKRZK4iG4CgfcqDG tNQ//9pkZirEPhUceTrcP+tj5eccCQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201812r; t=1548058812; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from : subject : date; bh=ZxU7UQbiBjDWTj6i7H0P1jq3/isxGf7MZssTewJ4ZLg=; b=GwQR+TmfBAb1Pg/ixbLgolXdwgAMYM6FzPIAYHXnaef06vSm3vUeKABE /n3HkTUBlk4OaNUiGwnQKzDykiOW4jYje+nw2HuXgPUnCnLzqPDmAP6BL3 AMWCW46RyywXCfVM5Y7CmytCHxy3BgN74aiCrgKzZ77mTROwh66MtVJgPR UZrKoiq0H7be48coLmvpSqxlkXtiv2nf9B3U+7OtRdVidXoB3A6gPU74kp 58/jn80h/q37zCINMrMK/SsFlsXEFnEJ1gYMVyUq5QSkzVgB4JcKyXmbtm SgjrWnJ+QtPUgLPPnm5/tAAH7dYWG0bfARR/MEOxFh2URYHwCGPTcw==
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 353F22D40423 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:20:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 03:20:11 -0500
Message-ID: <3080508.dEIuz3QfSj@kitterma-e6430>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-164-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaKEW3e47P7_rWbh4HO5977VJ-XAfGLz-xhBS7RQ2Csfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <154275534023.29886.12970892679231398383.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <12578706.O8KzW9sDEf@kitterma-e6430> <CAL0qLwaKEW3e47P7_rWbh4HO5977VJ-XAfGLz-xhBS7RQ2Csfw@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/rfc5ki2POZtikjmfXk2fzqPPJP8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 21 Jan 2019 08:20:19 -0000

On Monday, January 21, 2019 02:41:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > Hunk at "page 17, line 44":
> > 
> > Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end
> > of
> > the new paragraph.  Something like, "Additionally, [RFC8463] added a new
> > signing algorithm in DKIM, ed25519-sha256 and it is also useful to be able
> > to
> > distinguish such signatures to identify cryptographic algorithm specific
> > failures."
> > 
> > That would also need a new informative reference to RFC 8463.
> 
> I'll take Alexey's direction here, but I'm uneasy adding new references and
> text like this after IESG Review.
> 
> Hunk at "page 18, line 32":
> > "Note that in an EAI-formatted message, the "mailfrom" value can be
> > expressed
> > in UTF-8."
> > 
> > Isn't it more correct to say that the local part of the "mailfrom" value
> > can
> > be expressed in UTF-8?  The domain part is still a U-label as I understand
> > it.
> > The text as written is literally correct since the entire mailfrom is
> > valid
> > UTF-8, but I'm afraid it may be misleading.  As written, I could see it
> > causing confusion relative to the guidance in Section 5.
> > 
> > Hunk at "page 21, line 21":
> > 
> > Same comment re UTF-8.
> > 
> > Hunk at "page 22, line 4":
> > 
> > Someone who has read the VBR RFC recently enough to remember should check
> > and
> > see if my UTF-8 comment applies here nor not.  I'm not sure either way.
> 
> I'm less concerned about making these adjustments since they're just
> refinements, so, done.

Thanks.  This update addresses my concerns.

In the area of the tiniest of nits possible, in Section 2.2, did you really 
mean to add the second space after authres-header-field and before = in the 
ABNF?

Scott K