On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Oh yeah. I sent this all in a bit of a rush (while waiting for a cab).
> I'm also writing this in a bit of a rush, but I'm still going to have
> to chat with Olafur to try and figure out what we do with the whole
> "many trees" / DNA
Oh yeah. I sent this all in a bit of a rush (while waiting for a cab).
I'm also writing this in a bit of a rush, but I'm still going to have
to chat with Olafur to try and figure out what we do with the whole
"many trees" / DNAME issues.
W
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:
That's a valid point. Should we say that it should be UTF-8 ? I will
add some text for this if I get a few more agreeing nods of people.
Maybe I've lost track of EAI, but from RFC 6530, I got the impression that all
addresses already were in UTF-8. If
On Fri, 14 Mar 2015, John Levine wrote:
My advice would be to remove all of the current text in 3.1 and
replace it with a note that systems that publish records at names that
are hashed mailboxes may publish CNAMEs for variant mailbox hashes
that they consider to be equivalent. That's safe, sin
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
EAI email *addresses* ARE UTF-8 by definition. There is simply no
mechanism to signal any other encoding, either in SMTP envelopes
or in primary message headers (where one can signal the encoding
of "phrases" like the display name, but not the addres
On Sat, 14 Mar 2015, John Levine wrote:
In article
you write:
Thanks everyone for your feedback and comments, the WGLC is now closed.
I think that it looks like there is strong consensus for publishing,
but I'm hoping to re-read all the comments on my flight home
(currently sitting in TXL) t
In article
you write:
>Thanks everyone for your feedback and comments, the WGLC is now closed.
>
>I think that it looks like there is strong consensus for publishing,
>but I'm hoping to re-read all the comments on my flight home
>(currently sitting in TXL) to see if I've missed anything obvious..
On Mar 13, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Wil Tan wrote:
> o The user name (the "left-hand side" of the email address, called the
> "local-part" in the mail message format definition [RFC2822] and the "local
> part" in the specification for internationalized email [RFC6530]) is
> extracted from the email ad
Thanks everyone for your feedback and comments, the WGLC is now closed.
I think that it looks like there is strong consensus for publishing,
but I'm hoping to re-read all the comments on my flight home
(currently sitting in TXL) to see if I've missed anything obvious...
W
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at
Hi,
On 13 Mar 2015, at 18:10, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> Appendix A:
>> Two things: I suggest moving this to -usage and adding pseudocode
>> examples. The latter mostly to encourage more implementations.
>
> I thought about keeping it software agnostic, but in the end figured
> since gnupg has been
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 01:10:21PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> This could go either way. If the WG thinks that the user, or
> someone responsible for the user, will add and change DNS records
> for that user, your proposal would clearly be better because you
> could delegate the user to a new sub
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 07:25:22PM -0400, James Cloos wrote:
> JL> ._mailbox.domain
>
> I posted in the past that smime and openpgp should use the same _name
> (search the archives for '_at'). I gave up when it got zero traction.
I don't recall seeing this proposal, perhaps it predates my mem
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:09:57PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >1) Section 3, in case of EAI, it should specify the character encoding of
> >the local-part on which to perform the SHA224 function.
>
> That's a valid point. Should we say that it should be UTF-8 ? I will
> add some text for this i
13 matches
Mail list logo
