On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> Hunk at "page 17, line 44": > > Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end > of > the new paragraph. Something like, "Additionally, [RFC8463] added a new > signing algorithm in DKIM, ed25519-sha256 and it is also useful to be able > to > distinguish such signatures to identify cryptographic algorithm specific > failures." > > That would also need a new informative reference to RFC 8463. > I'll take Alexey's direction here, but I'm uneasy adding new references and text like this after IESG Review. Hunk at "page 18, line 32": > > "Note that in an EAI-formatted message, the "mailfrom" value can be > expressed > in UTF-8." > > Isn't it more correct to say that the local part of the "mailfrom" value > can > be expressed in UTF-8? The domain part is still a U-label as I understand > it. > The text as written is literally correct since the entire mailfrom is > valid > UTF-8, but I'm afraid it may be misleading. As written, I could see it > causing confusion relative to the guidance in Section 5. > > Hunk at "page 21, line 21": > > Same comment re UTF-8. > > Hunk at "page 22, line 4": > > Someone who has read the VBR RFC recently enough to remember should check > and > see if my UTF-8 comment applies here nor not. I'm not sure either way. > I'm less concerned about making these adjustments since they're just refinements, so, done. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
