Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI

2018-02-09 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article <1707398.kN3rUcK64s@kitterma-e6430> you write: > >Does this need to update RFC 7208 since there are SPF related MUST > >requirements? > > I would think so, also 6376, 7489, 7601 since it updates DKIM, DMARC, and >

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI

2018-02-09 Thread John Levine
In article <1707398.kN3rUcK64s@kitterma-e6430> you write: >Does this need to update RFC 7208 since there are SPF related MUST >requirements? I would think so, also 6376, 7489, 7601 since it updates DKIM, DMARC, and A-R specs. R's, John ___ NOTE WELL:

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI

2018-02-09 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday, February 09, 2018 05:02:00 PM John R. Levine wrote: > > If I may once again change the topic for a moment ... > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth/ > > I pushed out a new version that says something about SPF macros, > attempting to say that if

Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

2018-02-09 Thread John R. Levine
In article <20180209202621.31355.qm...@f3-external.bushwire.net>, Mark Delany wrote: Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and managed to do just fine without a version.

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI

2018-02-09 Thread John R. Levine
If I may once again change the topic for a moment ... https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth/ I pushed out a new version that says something about SPF macros, attempting to say that if you try to expand a UTF-8 local part, it doesn't match anything. I

Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

2018-02-09 Thread Dave Crocker
On 2/9/2018 12:26 PM, Mark Delany wrote: On 08Feb18, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote: I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4 vs. ipv6? Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a

Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

2018-02-09 Thread Mark Delany
On 08Feb18, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote: > I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4 > vs. ipv6? Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and managed to do just