Replying to one question posed below. Eliding the other content...
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:55 AM Martin Dürst via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Martin Dürst
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Internationalization Directorate (i18ndir) reviewer for this
draft. Harald Alvestrand and Pete Resnik contributed to this review.
<elided>
Major/intermediate issues:
=========================
The Abstract mentions the Authentication-Results header field, but the
text doesn't.
Section 4, %{s} and %{l} macros in SPF: The draft says that these cannot
be used for local parts that contain non-ASCII characters. This may be
enough for this draft, but is this a problem that should be fixed in the
longer term? How widely are %{s} and %{l} macros used currently?
Based on a dataset that is currently a couple of years old, surveying about 12M domains that were in current use at that time, there were 75 using the %{s} macro and 139 using %{l}. So I think it's a safe generalization to say that they are not widely used. From a cursory inspection, it appears that the general use case is for logging anomalies through query records employing the "exists" SPF mechanism.
--Kurt Andersen
