In article <caozaafm9_pv-vaagtw1quyt1wpxobg0y44rrtvkziczkxb5...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I agree ARC should be EAI-ized. > >To be clear, are you saying that once 7601bis and draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth >are approved by the IESG and properly update 7601 and 6376, then no direct >changes are needed to the ARC spec? > >So the only wording consideration under WGLC is the ABNF import with >respect to DKIM and draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth?
Yes, although it's probably worth reminding people where things are different in EAI messages. R's, John >On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:47 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> I was updating my EAI-izing draft for DKIM and DMARC and realized that it >> would be nice not to have to update ARC, too. >> >> The gist of it is the same as what I said for DKIM: anywhere there's a >> domain name there can be an IDN written with U-labels (Unicode), and >> anywhere there's user text, the text can be UTF-8. >> >> The easiest thing for me would be for us to give >> draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth a nudge so where it says ARC imports ABNF >> from RFC6376, it instead says it imports from RFC6376 as updated by >> draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth. >> >> The concrete changes are that in the AS header, the d= s= tags can be >> IDNs, and in the AMS header, the d= s= tags can be IDNs, i= can have >> unicode local-part and IDN domain, and throughout dkim-safe-char is updated >> so that non-ASCII characters don't have to be quoted. I assume 7601bis >> will be done so AAR can inherit from there. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
