Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (6036)
ned+ima@mrochek.com Wed, 01 April 2020 18:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E003A15B6 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:17:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 ka5LNqOPyBs7 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plum.mrochek.com (plum.mrochek.com [172.95.64.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 156CF3A15B4 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RJ6VOUSZ00003HNW@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1585764732; bh=jZb8YVqr7I3vgxzgA1MatiEqp5fj4VEgr5mna09XWQg=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=NLN0vsOJCdPRJIvDN4oj3ZnQVK1eoe9TBTixrdfdutTNdA2trwNV2pxhJ6ERx78sQ 5Xsy9ahwJSk043vn4y32smowicz2bvWrzB1HdzJG217IyN90X4pOtCkQQRWeu2rNEP Pkad6Xezz+TN82WGxxqhwiO1NXqZ60wRdRR7chz0=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01RIHLDFQH34000058@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Message-id: <01RJ6VOT0NY8000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 11:11:52 -0700
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:34:50 -0400" <20200401163450.AC54716DE75A@ary.qy>
References: <20200401083756.5D051F40723@rfc-editor.org> <20200401163450.AC54716DE75A@ary.qy>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/LivcTsE0OgLIrkeuKFAoJi6iT_g>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (6036)
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ima/>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 18:17:18 -0000
Agreed. This should be rejected. Ned > This erratum is wrong. The MIME definition of "token" is fine. > In RFC 8601 we misused "token" in the Authenticated-Results header for > what really is a domain name. That's what needs to be fixed, and we're > discussing what the least bad fix is. > R's, > John > In article <20200401083756.5D051F40723@rfc-editor.org> you write: > >The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6532, > >"Internationalized Email Headers". > > > >-------------------------------------- > >You may review the report below and at: > >https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6036 > > > >-------------------------------------- > >Type: Technical > >Reported by: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> > > > >Section: GLOBAL > > > >Original Text > >------------- > >A section 3.2bis, "Syntax Extensions to RFC 2045", is missing. > > > > > >Corrected Text > >-------------- > >In particular, Section 5.1 of RFC 2045, "Syntax of the Content-Type Header Field", deserves an extension: > > > > token /= UTF8-non-ascii > > > >similar to the extensions given to various text types given in Section 3.2. > > > >Notes > >----- > >Various header fields are defined in terms of the grammar defined in RFC 2045. In particular, the missing extension of > >token was reported for Authentication-Results: > >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/g1U__axJW5I6OenEuwD48nwptzU > > > >Instructions: > >------------- > >This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > >use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > >rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > >can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > > >-------------------------------------- > >RFC6532 (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13) > >-------------------------------------- > >Title : Internationalized Email Headers > >Publication Date : February 2012 > >Author(s) : A. Yang, S. Steele, N. Freed > >Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > >Source : Email Address Internationalization > >Area : Applications > >Stream : IETF > >Verifying Party : IESG > > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
- [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (6036) RFC Errata System
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… John Levine
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… John R. Levine
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… Ben Campbell
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… ned+ima
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (60… John R. Levine