On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> > 7601bis loosens the language about what's appropriate to send downstream,
> > from being only authenticated identifiers to also allowing other related
> > stuff that downstream agents might want to use or log. That means things
> > like
On Monday, February 19, 2018 08:42:24 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs
> > ever published.
>
> Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its
> ant
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs
ever published.
Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its
antecedents was in last call? No errata?)
I admit I could have been paying more attent
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs
> ever published.
>
Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its
antecedents was in last call? No errata?)
> The IANA registry says that there
In article
you write:
>Et voila. If you go to the "History" tab and request a diff from the
>individual -00 to the working group -00, you can see all of the changes
>made relative to RFC7601. Basically it loosens up the language about what
>categories of things can be recorded, makes the ABNF c
On Wednesday, February 07, 2018 09:11:48 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
...
>
> Let me know if I missed anything.
On the DCRUP mailing list there has been discussion ab
Here's some stuff from my EAI authentication draft which it would be nice
if you could fold in.
Is this stuff in scope for this working group? This feels a bit like
feature creep.
Or should your draft just modify this one instead of RFC7601? The changes
are so small that this could go throug
On February 8, 2018 5:11:48 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication,
>> Reporting & Conformanc
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 10:40 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> Here's some stuff from my EAI authentication draft which it would be nice
> if you could fold in.
> [...]
Is this stuff in scope for this working group? This feels a bit like
feature creep.
Or should your draft just modify this one ins
Here's some stuff from my EAI authentication draft which it would be nice
if you could fold in.
In section 1.5, I'd add a section about EAI, pointing to RFCs 6530-2, and
saying that in EAI messages, you can have UTF-8 most places you can have
text intended for humans, and U-labels anywhere the
Looks great to me. This allows us to simplify several pieces of ARC and
make the draft easier to follow.
Thank you!
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 21:11 Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> dir
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:59 PM, wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication,
> Reporting & Conformance WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Message Header Field for Ind
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting
& Conformance WG of the IETF.
Title : Message Header Field for Indicating Message
Authentication Status
Autho
13 matches
Mail list logo
