Shepherd writeup
rfc8616-06

This RFC is being put forward as a proposed standard, updating three prior standards and one prior informational specification.

Technical Summary:

    E-Mail Authentication for Internationalized Mail updates the pre-EAI
    authentication mechanisms: SPF, DKIM, and DMARC by clarifying which form
    of the internationalized domain names (IDNs) to use in those protocols
    and when recording results in the Authentication-Results header.

Working Group Summary:

    The working group process has not had any controversy regarding this
    specification as it is viewed primarily as clarifying existing practice.
    Two other documents from the working group are referencing this document
    for their treatment of IDNs in the context of the ARC and 7601bis update
    to the Authentication-Results header syntax.

Document Quality:

    This document covers the implications for all four of the referenced
    specifications. It includes a normative reference to an informative
    specification (RFC7489) because of the mixture between standards
    track and informative amongst the updated specs.

Personnel:

    Document Shepherd: Kurt Andersen
    Area Director:  Alexey Melnikov

Responding to the other identified questions for shepherd review:

(3) The document has been reviewed and subjected to extra verbose nit analysis.
The document has completed last call review within the DMARC working group and
no issues were identified.

(4) I have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been
performed.

(5) No additional reviews should be needed since this document is enumerating
clarifications between the email address internationalization specs and
pre-existing email domain authentication specifications.

(6) No concerns other than the downref citation against RFC7489.

(7 & 8) The author has confirmed IPR compliance.

(9) As noted above in the summary, there is no controversy regarding this
document. General consensus exists amongst the WG. There has been 
minimal discussion because the draft has existed for quite some time before
being adopted by the WG and the work is straightforward.

(10) No appeals or discontent has been expressed.

(11) Aside from the nits tool being overly picky about connjunctions within
the boilerplate section, and the indicated downref, no other nits exist.

(12) N/A

(13) yes

(14) no

(15) Yes - normative reference against RFC7489

(16) This document updates three other RFCs (6376, 7208, 7489). There are descriptive
references to the Authentication-Results header (currently defined in 7601) but that
RFC is currently being obsoleted by draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis which also incorporates
the information found in this document. 

(17) N/A

(18) N/A

(19) N/A
Back