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 (PDT)
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