Hello, Should that count as a consensus, or would others like additional information?
Thank you -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse Comcast From: Daniel Margolis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:32 AM To: Brotman, Alexander <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Uta] TLSRPT mx-host-pattern +1 for a JSON array. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:43 PM Brotman, Alexander <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello, While someone was beginning to write their code for TLSRPT, they noticed that mx-host-pattern is under specified. o "mx-host-pattern": The pattern of MX hostnames from the applied policy. It is provided as a string, and is interpreted in the same manner as the "Checking of Wildcard Certificates" rules in Section 6.4.3 of [RFC6125]. In the case of Internationalized Domain Names ([RFC5891]), the domain MUST consist of the Punycode- encoded A-labels ([RFC3492]) and not the U-labels. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-smtp-tlsrpt-23#section-4.4 So, the questions arises when for instance one is using MTA-STS and has two MX allowed patterns and how that should be noted in the report field. I'd like to suggest we use a JSON array, as the report is already in JSON. An alternate would be a simple string. I wanted to see if the WG had any objections to this change. Thanks for your time. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse Comcast _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
