On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:13 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <4878884.yiV4iTtLKX@kitterma-e6430> you write: > >> In authentication service identifiers in EAI-formatted messages, a > U-label > >> and its equivalent A-label are considered to be the same. > > > >As an implementer (who's tried really hard to avoid spending cycles on > EAI - > >sorry), does this translate into "be prepared for UTF-8 in any A-R > element > >that may contain an email address or a domain"? > > That's partly it. IDN domain labels can be in two different forms, a > UTF-8 U-label or an xn--punycode A-label. It would be a good idea to > treat them as equivalent. There are translation libraries, and it's > easy to recognize U-labels by checking for the 0x80 bit so this is not > a lot of code. Having been writing MTA patches to handle EAI better > last week, I say this from experience. > Does that mean the proposed change is appropriate, or the current text is sufficient? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
