spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre2

2005-06-05 17:59:23
wayne wrote:
 
We also decided to change "prefix" to "qualifier".

Watch "prefixes" in s/.refix/qualifier/g => "qualifieres" ;-)

let it sit for a while, and then do another read-over.

Why do you use "manual" references for stuff like US-ASCII
or RMX ?  For the Vixie note it's clear.  Hm, okay, I see,
rfc/bibxml2/reference.ANSI.X3-4.1968.xml has no nice anchor,
and RfC 20 won't be much better, PITA.

The docname still says "-01", you need "-02".  And a new date.

The ToC is confused, it adds 12.2 below 13.2.  I vaguely recall
similar problems with NNTP draft -26 and an xml2rfc hot fix.

Please don't forget to add a -02 change log for the IESG^Wthe
readers.  Mention anything you did about the "intended status"
for Ted's [Discuss]^W^WBruce.  

Readers probably like to see that something really happened.

Add the "if a message is rejected" blurb with the proper DSN
codes to "PermError" (same style as TempError/SoftFail/Fail) -
or do you plan to discuss SPF Council resolutions with me on
public IETF lists in the "last call" ?  Maybe we could use
some PayPal "donate" URLs for this spectacle and then retire.

You forgot to test the new ABNF, it's 1*2DIGIT, not 2*1DIGIT.

Bruce will ask about a leading zero in 2DIGIT, is it octal ?
Hm, the RfC 2821 Snum is worse, so maybe that's not critical.

But STD 66 (3968) offers a correct dec-octet, please copy it
for your "qnum".  Or prepare a text about "octal".  Yes, there
is even an RfC about precisely this issue.  Weird or not, it's
how it is.

You have a normative Rfc 2821, Bruce might note that errata for
this and other RfCs exist and could be metioned as [Errata].
Okay, that can't be critical,

The -02pre2 XML is valid (Bill's validator).  But my qnum test
apparently killed Bill's ABNF checker, I couldn't test the rest
of the ABNF, sorry, bye, Frank