-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
William Leibzon wrote:
domain-spec = macro-string domain-end
domain-end = ( "." toplabel ) / macro-expand
toplabel = ALPHA / ALPHA *[ alphanum / "-" ] alphanum
; LDH rule (See [RFC3696])
Nothing's wrong here, only "must start with ALPHA" is a bit _too_
restrictive wrt 3696: The 3696 toplabel rule is "must contain not only
digits". But so far that exists only in a USEFOR draft as ABNF, 3696 hat
it in prose.
The SPF spec. took the simple toplabel ABNF of 2396 (obsolete).
The "official" toplabel rule is even more restrictive than SPF.
I think the SPF-specific requirement that TLDs not start with a digit is
purely arbitrary.
No issue here from our POV, and we don't need any trailing dot.
DNS doesn't "need" trailing dots either, right?
Not allowing trailing dots is a purely arbitrary restriction, too.
William Leibzon wrote:
You forget about famous TLD as a host case (currently only "ws") that
John Klensin wants to fix by requiring trailing dot when referring
to it as a host so "email(_at_)tld(_dot_)" would be valid address for RFC2821.
And yes, some administrators regularly add "." to the end of domain
specification to signify its FQDN and not local hostname to be searched
within domains specified in /etc/resolv Resolvers all deal with this
nicely.
Very true. But allowing trailing dots for single-label but not for multi-
label names, that would be even more arbitrary.
So I need direction here. Do we want to consider existing SPF records
with redirect (that end with ".") at the end to be syntax error now or
do we want some kind of last pre-RFC publication effort to correct SPF
spec and allow for it?
I think these two restrictions ("TLD may not start with a digit", "no
trailing dots") should be lifted as part of the last-minute changes.
Please lets have comments from those who have implemented the spec
as to how you handle it (so the spec meets majority deployment when
published).
How is the deployed base relevant for whether _relaxing_ arbitrary
restrictions is appropriate?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEIpDvwL7PKlBZWjsRAsm9AKDiWldORTk4Kw+6BizE/yRIuITU+gCgvx9p
ebwCUTABoYFaKse8kYiKZzo=
=wf9C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com