-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
the draft-mengwong-spf-01 behavior, i.e. SPF(non-existent-domain) ==
"PermError", makes the most sense.
[Do not allow SPF to be applied to non-existent domains.]
I disagree with this part. SPF can be "applied" to anything
that's allowed in a DNS query, existing or not.
You mean, like log() "can" be applied to 0? Yes, it "can", but it should
throw an error.
If it does not exist the result is NONE.
"is NONE"? Define "is". The current spec says so, but that's exactly what
I'm disputing.
People just shouldn't expect SPF to work on invalid input data.
Invalid input data are characters above 127, or more than 25x
characters.
No. Input data can be invalid on a syntactical level (which you
described), but it can also be invalid on a semantical level (the log(0)
case). Applying SPF() to malformed domains is invalid on a syntactical
level. Applying SPF() to wellformed but non-existent domains is invalid
on a semantical level. Both should result in "PermError".
I suggested renaming "prefix" to "sign" in the grammar
I've some difficulties with "?" as "sign" instead of "prefix".
Irrelevant from my POV => editor's choice or known terminology.
Well, s/prefix/sign/ is not something I will fight to get through, but I
did not get a final reply to my original comments to Wayne, so I raised
the issue again.
Please consider my argument that in a formal grammar, elements should not
be named after their syntactical function but after their semantical one.
Suggest any other name for the thing if you want. Perhaps "mode"?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCe1yCwL7PKlBZWjsRApcmAJ9hI1GacDurLFDb4bV/OwZgEiZ4NQCfZk7g
lijs4DruUjQmHGyijZ+beqw=
=qaZU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----