Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter
2010-03-03 15:38:40
On 3/2/10 6:47 PM, John Levine wrote:
RFC 4871, top sentence on page 20, in the description of d=
...
RFC 4871, second paragraph on page 21, in the description of i=
For the bis effort, I'd recommend this clarification. I think it would fall
within acceptable boundaries of change while going to Draft.
I agree the two sentences should say the same thing. Don't feel
strongly about the wording since the way UTF->punycode works is the
same for all domain names everywhere.
Disagree. One should not assume there is a unitary conversion of UTF to
punycode. The informational RFC 5242 has changed this one-to-one
relationship. As such UTF->punycode will produce a more than one
conversion, depending upon conversion rule-sets applied. There is a
genuine need for the additional rule-sets, so don't assume there is a
unitary conversion of UTF to punycode, or that there are even just two
possibilities.
This issue will impact ADSP more than DKIM base. ADSP is based upon
what is seen in the From header. Conversions of the From header may not
resolve to a specific domain, depending upon the evolving conversion
rule-sets. The solution sought to deal with this issue is to use
"equivalent" names to intercept these possible conversions. The set of
overlapping UTF names can be rather large and evolving.
ADSP may consider advising the use of double conversion. Convert UTF
into punycode using RFC5242 rules, and then convert punycode to UTF-8.
Since there is no definite conversion that might be used, assured
compliance may depend upon methods that allow use of third-party
signatures, which could apply whenever the conversion rule-sets between
sender and receiver are not the same.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter, (continued)
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter, Douglas Otis
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter, Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, John R. Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, John R. Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter,
Douglas Otis <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Ian Eiloart
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Barry Leiba
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Eliot Lear
- Re: [ietf-dkim] Don't do that, was IDNs, was Proposed new charter, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] IDNs, was Proposed new charter, Michael Thomas
|
|
|