ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter

2010-03-01 20:03:25
On 3/1/10 5:12 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
in theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.
in practice, there's interoperability testing...
     
I'd think more conformance than interop, since I'd be surprised if there
were any ambiguity about the correct way to encode UTF-8 into punycode.
   
There remains issues related to DNS conversion for code predating RFC 
5242, which can lead to different results.  UTF-8 in email is used to 
accommodate IDNs per RFC 5336.  Uncertain conversions represent 
justifications for finding ways to replicate zones in order to establish 
name equivalency.   It takes many years for code to find stability, 
where IDN is within a transitional phase.

As a side note, the tpa-label scheme could accommodate "equivalent" and 
"alt-name" validations, such as those related to ADSP, in addition to 
the authorizing of mailing-lists that remains an open issue.

-Doug

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html