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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F58130E29 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
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=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AJUZySoGOvz4 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A117127333 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1540465407; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=v9egTM/cSxmEDsDHT7zbnrGwUm8t4i07+MZWCxAvQSs=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=eZvx1ADU211UPlSWNBrKiAAk7LDOP7WMOWq1zzvTs50h4mL381cvuWrN/lXwXPYCin2fjk x7Hehc6po4z3RfMWB9SvJnbkpVGyc9QBzfZ4OVRaYrdZmr5VgNjCF2QvgblgPE8DLoOtzP y/a6XT7WcIRl0QwpkvoKHbSsiDmO5WA=;
Received: from [] (dhcp-215.isode.net []) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <W9Gi=gArG77p@waldorf.isode.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:03:27 +0100
To: dmarc@ietf.org
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <3eea2f77-8aea-4f49-80f3-d96b639c378a@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:03:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ug2XvXqGjyd6S7utkrSq7pq3wv0>
Subject: [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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:03:30 -0000


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:


"value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME].


"value" is as defined in Section 5.1 of [MIME], with "quoted-string" 
updated as specified in RFC 6532.

Best Regards,