On Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:04 AM [GMT+1=CET], J. Trent Adams wrote: > We have chosen to submit the DMARC specification via the Independent > Submission Editor (ISE). > (snip) > To support this effort, we are asking the community for input as we > prepare the current version for submission to the ISE. We are seeking > concise statements that can be incorporated into the specification > primarily with a focus toward clarity, readability, and utility.
About: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/?include_text=1 I think that either section 5.2 is not clear enough, or the example given "mailto:[email protected]%2150m"; is wrong. As I read it, section 5.2 is saying that a "DMARC URI" is a superset of [URI], and that while "commas or exclamation points are percent-encoded per [URI]" the definition of "DMARC URI" does not state that the superset it defines has also to be percent-encoded, and therefore the example given would be wrong. As I read it, the email address [email protected] would translate to the canonical [URI] : mailto:my%[email protected] which in turn would translate to this, for example 50MB-limited, "DMARC URI" : mailto:my%[email protected]!50m I.e, section 5.2 says to percent-encode commas or exclamation points when they are inside [URI] (as per [URI]-itself definition), but not when they are inside the "DMARC URI" extension to [URI]. It perhaps may be argued both ways, but I think more clarity in this section the specification would be in order. Regards, J.Gomez _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
