Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-03.txt> (E-mail Authentication for Internationalized Mail) to Proposed Standard

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:03:53 -0700

Hello,
At 07:38 AM 28-02-2019, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Domain-based Message Authentication,
>Reporting & Conformance WG (dmarc) to consider the following document: -
>'E-mail Authentication for Internationalized Mail'
>   <draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-03.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2019-03-14. Exceptionally, comments may be

RFC 7489 is an Informational document.  It has caused issues such as 
the following: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s_Y8Vux32Ei_0HCBiiVzb-4hhFg 
Why is draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-03 on the Standards Track?

Why is RFC 7208 being updated given that Section 4 of this draft does 
specify any change to the rule in RFC 7208?

Section 6 of this draft does not specify any change to RFC 7489.  Why 
is there an update for that RFC?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Mar 2019 11:34:09 -0400

> RFC 7489 is an Informational document.  It has caused issues such as the 
> following: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s_Y8Vux32Ei_0HCBiiVzb-4hhFg Why is 
> draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-03 on the Standards Track?

Because it updates RFCs 6376 and 7208, which are draft standards.

> Why is RFC 7208 being updated given that Section 4 of this draft does specify 
> any change to the rule in RFC 7208?

I presume you meant to say "doesn't", but in fact it does.  See in 
particular the last paragraph of section 4.

> Section 6 of this draft does not specify any change to RFC 7489.  Why is 
> there an update for that RFC?

Because it does.  See the second paragraph of section 6.  The existing 
7489 language in several places that says "the domain name must be 
converted to an A-label" is wrong since mail addresses don't contain 
single label domains.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:31:45 -0700

Hi John,
At 08:34 AM 24-03-2019, John R Levine wrote:
>>RFC 7489 is an Informational document.  It has caused issues such 
>>as the following: 

RFC 6376 is an Internet Standard.  It may make matters complicated in 
future if that specification has to be revised.  I'll comment about 
RFC 7208 below.

>particular the last paragraph of section 4.

Yes.  Sorry, I missed that.  The local-part is imported from RFC 
5321.  There was some discussion about the issue in 2012.  The 
"updates" does not seem EAI specific.

>Because it does.  See the second paragraph of section 6.  The 
>existing 7489 language in several places that says "the domain name 
>must be converted to an A-label" is wrong since mail addresses don't 
>contain single label domains.

There are other (reported) technical issues with that RFC.  I gather 
that the DMARC working group is not interested in fixing that specification.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 24 Mar 2019 16:51:57 +0000

> RFC 6376 is an Internet Standard.  It may make matters complicated in future 
> if that specification has to be revised.  I'll comment about RFC 7208 below.

In this case I defer to the AD and the IESG.  If they want to put it on a 
different track, it's OK with me, but it seems fairly obvious that you 
update standards track documents with other standards track documents.

> Yes.  Sorry, I missed that.  The local-part is imported from RFC 5321.  There 
> was some discussion about the issue in 2012.  The "updates" does not seem EAI 
> specific.

It refers to "non-ASCII characters"?  If you have non-ASCII characters and 
purport to be following IETF standards, it's EAI.

>> Because it does.  See the second paragraph of section 6.  The existing 7489 
>> language in several places that says "the domain name must be converted to 
>> an A-label" is wrong since mail addresses don't contain single label 
>> domains.
>
> There are other (reported) technical issues with that RFC.  I gather that the 
> DMARC working group is not interested in fixing that specification.

That horse left the barn several years ago.  I am not crazy about DMARC 
but the current spec is very widely implemented and isn't going to change 
in any way that isn't backward compatible.

Regards,

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:10:38 -0400

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:33 PM S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> There are other (reported) technical issues with that RFC [7489].  I
> gather

I'm not sure where you gathered that implication from since one of the
explicit milestones for the DMARC WG is indeed to update 7489. It just
happens to be a milestone that we have not yet started work on because we
have been engaged with precursor work (including this EAI component).

--Kurt Andersen

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:00:20 +0100

> that the DMARC working group is not interested in fixing that

As Kurt pointed out, we're chartered to do a standards track version of
DMARC as our ultimate deliverable.  We would be compelled to go through
verified errata as part of that process.  We just haven't started it yet.

I'm meeting with Tim later today to discuss our next batch of potential
milestones, etc., and that's part of the discussion.

-MSK (chairin')