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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, January 21, 2019 02:41:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> 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