Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 10 May 2013 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F0221F8D00 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2a6fc-m7U0eD for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFAD21F8CEC for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id t59so4082138wes.38 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MzWzX0bn23OskJid9/MmvrgMFFUhJdwZA9SkMYLuXXA=; b=tABqVWBZW8WVNYcwJsLlqneGRGK4z4i99BpBW7cLOyW82xXm6qqhny2a9quHixxwGb V08WfM4WDKXZ5TUu9WbVQmHOEqHoC9RDmk120jxonlMgm11SsBMtjlwe41aRA4tfRyl3 /4lFXt4YHnYIYeAmIWTolLbgPEwP0PTtIv86pT9oPlKdAvRUotOVcBoFjAOS9esfCayY EUofsmwvRVMdA90ljozA2XyMfdh0o3Eb/nZbnMm/kn6TNfnhyqZtbQo0q6p3ETu9P7R3 Ae2r60YQMoKxOg2xnuFroc/Z3x5UPOYeVW+B/e83De8wux/gcrhBwmjBb7Adfn2qMG6F gybw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.179.169 with SMTP id dh9mr19622439wjc.15.1368203830132; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.14.34 with HTTP; Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <518CC3BC.3090602@tana.it>
References: <20130409062431.GK24624@mx1.yitter.info> <CAL0qLwYkudUHYrGmsHyOLsB76j=Zrn5NCCacVnd1ncG=sQNmyg@mail.gmail.com> <1734898.5zN0vMnxl3@scott-latitude-e6320> <CAL0qLwYZAKR3Y2yCLrjr2wquis23=f4iSS5x3rFGFvxZ2oF6Sw@mail.gmail.com> <518BC146.6060103@tana.it> <CAL0qLwagW0HMqg7cj6o7KLB6XBLv7sfcLvzABfkO11zL5th2FA@mail.gmail.com> <518CC3BC.3090602@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 09:37:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZdecQJmJCeoA5rm4dt8ACkny7=2spFkrPOz7-qhnGT=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01419f4a4685c004dc5fc749"
Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 16:37:13 -0000

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:

> On Thu 09/May/2013 19:55:26 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
> wrote:
> >
> >>>    macro-letter     =  %x73 / %x6c / ...
> >>
> >> No, wait.  Do we really want that?
> >
> > We do if current implementations generally do only lowercase macro
> > support.  If they're case-insensitive, then what's there is fine.  It's
> my
> > impression that %{S} isn't valid to most implementations.  If I'm wrong
> > about that, then I withdraw the suggestion.
>
> I agree the case (in)sensitivity can easily get overlooked.  Yet, the
> syntax is the same.  Currently, the paragraph that specifies URL
> escaping makes no reference to any grammar rule, but we could rewrite
> it as:
>
> [...]


Whoops, I completely missed the thing about uppercase macros are URL
escaped.  I withdraw the suggestion.

-MSK