Ok, so we are asking Paul to submit the updated draft once the window opens, so that we have a clear slate. We are also planning on having a discussion at the face to face meeting on how we will deal with the LHS of email addresses in DANE. The outcome of this discussion may / will influence the contents of this, and possibly other documents. We need a single, clean way to deal with finding <things> associated with an email address, not one per document...
W On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, so there are still a number of outstanding things we need to > figure out on not just this draft, but the whole approach when it > comes to mail addresses. > > It seems that I may have been overoptimistic about the LHS of the > email address (and possibly the _prefix / DNAME solution), and if we > can just hand-wave this away... > > Olafur and I will chat, but I think that we need some assistance from > Apps folk, and to have a proper discussion of this in the F2F > meeting... > > Apologies to all for yanking you around. on the plus side, the network > in Dallas is starting tom come together nicely... > > W > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: >> [ Random top post ] >> So, it feels like we are approaching a compromise / consensus on this >> bit (which is good, because this part was the bit we were least in >> agreement on) >> >> Let's give this a bit more time to settle, then I'm planning on a very >> short WGLC, restricted just to this question, and with a "We'll >> assume you are OK with this, unless you say otherwise". >> >> W >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2015, John Levine wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I'd suggest taking out "based on special characters", since the most >>>> common mapping is case folding. The standard term for the LHS is >>>> local-part, so you might as well use that and reference RFC 5321, sec >>>> 2.3.11 where it's defined. >>>> >>>> Also, the SHOULD NOT would better be MUST NOT, to be consistent with >>>> RFC 5321 which says "the local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned >>>> semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the >>>> address." >>>> >>>> (If you have a private agreement with someone and you have knowledge >>>> of their internal mappings, you can do whatever you want, but of >>>> course private agreements are outside the scope of standards.) >>> >>> >>> With this, we've gone a full circle. It feels strange to me to write a >>> MUST NOT, knowing that implementors will need to do this in practise. >>> >>> But I guess I could live with it if the consensus moves this way, but to >>> me that seems only because I know the MUST NOT will be violated. >>> >>>> Having said all that, how useful do people think this will be if it >>>> doesn't allow the local-part fuzz that mail systems provide? If the >>>> addresses to be looked up are picked mechanically from incoming mail >>>> headers, it'd likely work fine. If typed in from business cards, it >>>> could be pretty frustrating. >>> >>> >>> Or even typed in on an iphone for which you have an existing contact >>> with a lower case name, and it stupidly Uppercases it anyway when you >>> type. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dane mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane >> >> >> >> -- >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >> idea in the first place. >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >> of pants. >> ---maf > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair > of pants. > ---maf -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
