-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think the SPF-specific requirement that TLDs not start with a digit
is purely arbitrary.
Nope, we copied that from existing RfCs (it's not only in 2396)
That doesn't make it any less arbitrary, because...
DNS doesn't "need" trailing dots either, right?
If you're dealing only with FQDNs, yes. Or with 2821 SMTP. There are no
optional trailing dots in mail addresses or URLs.
...there is no SPF mechanism or modifier that takes "mail addresses or
URLs" as arguments. Only domain names.
(BTW, have you ever tried entering "http://www.google.com."; into your -- or
another -- browser?)
Not allowing trailing dots is a purely arbitrary restriction,
[...]
If you could guarantee that no SPF implementation got the ABNF as is
right, all silently allowing a dot that's not there yet, you'd be of
course free to "fix" it. If you can't guaranteee that all existing
implementations are incorrect wrt the spec. as is leave it alone, it it
aint broken don't try to "fix" it.
[...]
The problem is breaking existing implementations, arbitrary or not is a
secondary point. Lots of historical decisions appear to be arbitrary,
many are, some are even clear errors, but it's dubious to break working
software without compelling reasons.
I do see your point (barely). But there's also the "be liberal in what you
expect" principle. What would the _real_ harm be if the spec started
allowing trailing dots? The spec wouldn't change a bit in existing
implementations, it would just encourage new ones to be more liberal, and
it would "encourage" existing restrictive ones to be changed to match the
spec and be more liberal, too. It's not as if changing existing
implementations in this regard was anything beyond trivial.
There are far more significant aspects in which existing implementations
don't match draft-schlitt-spf-classic.
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.
Unless you dare copy the USEFOR <toplabel> (in that case I'd be curious
what happens next) you can duly report a threatened appeal to Mr. Hardie.
Shepherds like to know such hazards.
Fine, do that if you must. I doubt Mr. Hardie (or most anyone else) has a
problem with these trivial changes. After all, SPF is going to be
"Experimental", right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEJQo1wL7PKlBZWjsRAmobAKDJoKrjQirpKXYWIJDmieakq1vCYgCgwdZc
GKMsors5ob4i4QtoVlQLdO4=
=ByRV
-----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