On 18.3.2015 17:24, Warren Kumari 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)
Warren and list, I believe that the RDATA format is still underspecified which seems like a major problem to me: Please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg07390.html Petr Spacek @ Red Hat > 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
