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 <superuser@gmail.com>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.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> 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.
>>
>> -Peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> domainrep mailing list
>> domainrep@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep
>>
>
>