ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt> (Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results) to Proposed Standard

2012-01-08 00:04:02
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of SM
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 7:42 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt>
(Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results) to
Proposed Standard

Hi SM,

As a editorial nit, the Introduction Section mentions that the memo
updates the IANA registries.  Erratum # 2617 is also about Section
2.4.2.  I suggest changing the heading of Section 3 to "Update to
Section 2.4.2 of RFC 5451" and some rewording of the paragraph:

  The "hardfail" result value for [SPF] (and thus also for [SENDER-ID])
  in Section 2.4.2 of RFC 5451 is replaced with the "fail" result value.

    fail: This client is explicitly not authorized to inject or relay
          mail using the sender's DNS domain.

That's a reasonable suggestion, but I think the important thing is to change 
the registry than to update RFC5451 itself.  If there are any sites that 
actually used the wrong value found in the original document, they may continue 
to do so and the definition for it needs to be in effect someplace.

Note that the update affects the example in Appendix B.5.

There's a separate erratum against the example as well, but that's less of a 
bug than a registry inconsistency.  We can fix the example whenever we feel 
like advancing a proper RFC5451bis.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to acknowledging in this draft that the example 
you cited also has the same error.  Would that suffice?

-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf