Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-22 Thread John R Levine
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: That would probably be me, but I don't know what the local-part problem is. My intention was to import the local-part changes from the EAI RFC. The problem has to do with the ambiguity that is being imported along with those local-part ABNF

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-22 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, John Levine wrote: > In article vmm...@mail.gmail.com> you write: > >This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's changes to support > >EAI. However, Barry has some concerns with how

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-22 Thread John Levine
In article you write: >This includes a registration for "header.a" and John's changes to support >EAI. However, Barry has some concerns with how "local-part" is not left in >a good state by these changes. Those of you in the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-21 Thread Scott Kitterman
I definitely prefer it go in the standards track document. There's nothing experimental about it. Scott K On March 21, 2018 3:20:21 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" wrote: >On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) >wrote: > >> In the diff I sent

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-21 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that's > >> important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can >>> do >>> another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-21 Thread Kurt Andersen (b)
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: > >> In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think >> that's >> important for troubleshooting. Is there a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-21 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > In the diff I sent in, I also proposed header.s (selector). I think that's > important for troubleshooting. Is there a reason you left it out? I can > do > another draft for it, if you want, but it seems like a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-20 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 05:13:13 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:11 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, >

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-20 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:11 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 :

[dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-01.txt

2018-03-20 Thread internet-drafts
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