On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 11:18:21AM +0100, Daniel Margolis wrote: > Thanks again for the feedback.
Sorry for the late reply, I was (almost) without internet the entire week. Responses inline as usual! > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Alberto Bertogli <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think allowing both forms makes it easier to deploy, so I'd be > > slightly in favour of that. Obviously that implies that the MTAs > > normalize the domains before doing the comparison, but that's not that > > big of a burden, I hope. > > > > Given the idempotency of the forms, normalizing inconditionally will > > always work regardless. > > > > But as long as it's clear, I don't feel very strongly about it :) > > > > Right. Not a big deal either way, I agree. Your point I guess is that we > can instead just call out the possibility of IDN MXs and recommend that > everyone decode both the hostname and the "mx" property to ASCII before > comparing and we're good. I agree. What you're saying SGTM. Whatever form is used (Viktor had some arguments towards A form in the other sub thread), I think it's worth calling it out explicitly to make it more clear to both software and policy writers, to avoid problems in the future once policies start to appear in the wild :) > > > > - The TXT record is on "_mta-sts" but the policy is on "mta-sts". Is > > that > > > > intentional? Why not putting both on the same domain, to simplify > > things? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is intentional. The underscore in "_mta-sts" was kept to be > > > similar to that in (e.g.) _dmarc TXT records, but for the HTTP host this > > > seemed inadvisable: > > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uta/current/msg01524.html. > > > > Interesting, I didn't know underscores in domains were not HTTP > > friendly, thanks for the reference. > > > > Why not unify them both under the "mta-sts" domain then? I see the > > appeal of the similarity with things like _dmarc, but is it worth it? > > > > *shrug* > > It's fairly arbitrary. Maybe at most an issue of aesthetics. Yes, I know it makes no functional difference, but having one record instead of two may make some things simpler and reduce the chance of confusion (even if it's easily detected). Not a big deal, but just thought I'd ask. Thanks again for being so patient and receptive to feedback! Alberto _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
