Excellent, thanks for the clarification. On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:18 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I wrote that, several months ago, I was concerned there might be an > incompatible update. I don't see any problems with the draft as it > currently > stands, so no issue. What's there describes things correctly. > > Scott K > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 10:27:36 AM Kurt Andersen wrote: > > I think that Seth is referring to Scott's "merely" designation: > > > > It doesn't appear that it proposes any changes for SPF. It merely > > > > > documents that non-ascii local parts don't match the related macros. > > > During the SPFbis working group we looked at this and explicitly > decided > > > on > > > it. It's not by accident. > > > Since local part macros are very rarely used, it seemed like very much > a > > > corner case not worth it to break the installed base over. > > > > rather than the charter change itself. I did not read this as something > > that needed to change in the document unless Scott is looking for bold > > flashing lights around it :-) > > > > --Kurt > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:17 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > I'm pretty sure charter adjustments are independent of WGLC (which is > to > > > say don't hold up one with the other). > > > > > > -MSK > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:09 AM Seth Blank <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Scott, does this need to be addressed during WGLC for > > >> draft-levine-eaiauth? > > >> > > >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > >> From: Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > > >> Date: Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:14 PM > > >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposed charter spiff to accept EAI > > >> clarification within email authentication stack > > >> To: Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On November 5, 2018 3:21:15 AM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" > > >> <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >This came out of this morning's DISPATCH meeting at IETF103 ( > > >> >https://tools.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/agenda) to be able to accept > > >> >http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth into > the > > >> >WG > > >> >for advancing it to an RFC (probably informational). > > >> > > >> Thanks. It doesn't appear that it proposes any changes for SPF. It > > >> merely documents that non-ascii local parts don't match the related > > >> macros. During the SPFbis working group we looked at this and > explicitly > > >> decided on it. It's not by accident. > > >> > > >> Since local part macros are very rarely used, it seemed like very > much a > > >> corner case not worth it to break the installed base over. > > >> > > >> If there's going to be a charter change around this, I think it needs > > >> some words to constrain the work to limit interoperability > implications. > > >> > > >> I know less about the implications for DKIM and DMARC, but would > imagine > > >> backward compatibility is important there too. > > >> > > >> Scott K > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> dmarc mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> dmarc mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dmarc mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
