Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <> Thu, 15 November 2012 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511D321F859D for <>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CBDD4wQVMtpl for <>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F2121F8525 for <>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:07:11 PST
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id qAFC760C018869 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:07:06 -0500
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:07:06 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Thread-Topic: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
Thread-Index: AQHNwriXwEKgaGnnokqwDdRKz+u4PpfqXfgAgABunZA=
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:07:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F0D6B17EEBRN1WNEXMBX01vc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:07:14 -0000

Murray, I haven't been able to find anything that describes a requirement for either upper or lower case. The grammar in ECMA-262 allows both, so key matching is (as you noted) case-insensitive. FWIW Google's JSON style guide suggests "camel-cased, ascii strings". It's perfectly acceptable to adopt a lower-case convention and use it consistently.


From: [] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:26 PM
To: Peter Koch
Subject: Re: [domainrep] WGLC: draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04

Actually, now that I've implemented the all-uppercase change in code, I hate it.  I think we should go to all-lowercase.  Unless there are objections, I'll make that change in the next version of the draft.

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <<>> wrote:
Quite right, the registry definition moved to the "media-type" document.  Updated in the working copy.

I had somehow reached the conclusion that key matching in JSON was case-insensitive.  I've adjusted them all to be all-uppercase, though going to all-lowercase would be fine too.  Please let me know if there's convention or preference to be observed here.

I've updated the registration template to mention that IP addresses are also covered by the application.  Which text are you talking about with respect to user level application?

RFC4408 being Experimental isn't a problem now because (a) it's already in the downref registry, and (b) there's a Proposed Standard coming out of the spfbis working group, so we have the option of going either way.  I'd be fine pointing at the impending PS and just waiting for it.


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <<>> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:44PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:

> This is a Working Group Last Call for:
>    A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers
>    draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-04
I have read version -05 of the document.  I am neither voicing support
nor opposition, just note that the document tries to register a value with
IANA with reference to [I-D.REPUTE-MODEL], in which no IANA
registry is opened and no policy defined.

Also, case is used inconsistently for the tags in sections 3.1 and 4.1.

The registration template says "Evaluates DNS domain names found in email"
but some of the fields do not relate to domain names (rather IP addresses)
and the descriptive text suggests that the granularity is actually
at user level.

draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-05 aims at standards track, but has
a {correct} normative reference to Experimental RFC 4408.

domainrep mailing list<>