Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Sat, 27 October 2018 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <blong@google.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 89304130E0C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 ORGrCmmpU8g0 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) (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 11792128B14 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id i78-v6so1209206ybg.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XySsxVEnEEisLKpEpIMS5zaKHOOmocP4yw/8vObBwIA=; b=v6otLhn4uC12UhiIVqk57GLPK3j4MB0iTAGKw0YhH90i5LqGj5XNq6Xeip4bIh8z/d ka8Uuwuiv/X59ig6iKwH8AuUL8PnYYCxpRBw/TChohIRnIOUaSMRTyP9U5FAism5B/0O tl5TO176LqR3D0XOTb//TpKMR5NjOvrxz6NXxkiHpSpFhfn/Z2s8r2l+4eOs17yluHJL 5KcislSKNo7b/8nY1tYvzRcCCWIk1n7BU+oWK8HdemOUrXjLZ8AauTdEF7X9nOVG8fTv twd4Ox4Mr8V6EpNBqhQ6Jbqfok6LCVP6u9BOrQq2PtDwjwzMurSNTPKze7cPCHwBqUoc L3gA==
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:cc; bh=XySsxVEnEEisLKpEpIMS5zaKHOOmocP4yw/8vObBwIA=; b=cwr4Ihfb3qsEqEJRPpoxE3QQqCoi52Zi+1dqSugEk+qKByGpGaMJoYreaaI1V4DqHp d/V8bV5+uBs1o9FawlJHlqe2gYBYwh+kWV8fqRxOoRVkOfgGHwKEcphkarmiDtJjJq/S YYFaIMvDusO8TxJhEjOsCHjyGnEdd/HGWm0Bp/MI9SC+5yVQXPND42iLN8po7WSltAxq ZmWF4fFlLryOY/P4x29F96lQRfsASGknyP+KsaiyWdD+Z0PmViCkTa5a+TF2jSE1iz8S e+mGSm5JbtQFCBlAJg0Ublj7SVx9Dcnu7JpXr7P9XTrqDZVJkn6TeKyirFVmR4tGl+5Z Sxww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gK7a0v5yb/JWzLEGzfh0hmeU6pTzgANhsRK2al7BKOgS9nsQ1Uk ddyJtNwXGjxSHHEofKNfAeHgWlphfeSN6xnYQhnqCUoBrLOL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5djPiEtSJt2HkgOVcWLJAvLJNZzArRLRHCAHEd4RQJIR763orJaEoF3nCJLLINoh7kU9RI3bE4W16z83x7ZlnY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b8f:: with SMTP id 137-v6mr5675132ybl.50.1540600419425; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3eea2f77-8aea-4f49-80f3-d96b639c378a@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <3eea2f77-8aea-4f49-80f3-d96b639c378a@isode.com>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:33:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABa8R6sdRzucAatJghXgQSa3Z0+RiVg=QhpPWo9pLOmxCCkX-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000be2a0705792afc3d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rhrO8JPLK-FOo2tYH-vQYW10bj8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 00:33:44 -0000

should authserv-id bet a dot-atom instead?  That seems to be the main uses
I see, as a domain, and that would allow UTF-8.

I don't know how bad that is compared to a token, and clearly that doesn't
allow a quoted-string, so I guess it would likely need to be
authserv-id = dot-atom-text / quoted-string

except that dot-atom-text isn't the same as token.. it allows "?" / "=" /
in particular, and I guess atext doesn't allow . on the ends ...
= could be problematic with some parsers given the prevalence of = in the
rest of the header.

I guess the alternative is to define a utf8-token that was VCHAR instead,
ie:

utf8-token := 1*<VCHAR except SPACE, CTLs, or tspecials>

with VCHAR updated by rfc 6532 to allow utf-8.

Or do we say that rfc 2045 should have been updated to VCHAR?  Probably a
bit annoying to do that.

Brandon


On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:03 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>;
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've started IETF LC on the document, as my comments are really minor:
>
> 1) I am not sure that deleted IANA registry descriptions (when compared
> to RFC 7601) is the best way, considering that this document obsoletes
> RFC 7601. I think it would be better to just keep the text and add a
> sentence saying that it is unchanged from RFC 7601. But I am happy to
> hear what IESG has to say about this.
>
> 2) The following took really long time to verify for correctness:
>
> Section 2.5 says about authserv-id:
>
>    Note that in an EAI-formatted message, this identifier may be
>          expressed in UTF-8.
>
> So I decided to check whether this statement is actually true.
> authserv-id is defined in Section 2.2 as:
>
>    authserv-id = value
>
>    "value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME].
>
>
> Section 5.1 of RFC 2045:
>
>     value := token / quoted-string
>
> "token" doesn't allow UTF-8 (I think), but quoted-strings does, if
> updated by RFC 6532.
>
> So, can I suggest that in Section 2.2, the following clarification is made:
>
> OLD:
>
> "value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME].
>
> NEW:
>
> "value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME], with "quoted-string"
> updated as specified in RFC 6532.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alexey
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>