On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:16:07PM -0500, wayne wrote:
At the beginning of Section 6.1, RFC 4408 (on page 23) says:
[snip]
In my opinion, your suggested changes would make things slightly
clearer, but I don't think it is worth listing as an errata.
Agreed.
(3) [suspected] ABNF issue (#1)
[snip]
no comment, not enough insight.
(4) ABNF issue (#2)
[snip]
This appears to be an error to me. good catch.
dito.
(5) typo ?
[snip]
This wording dates back to at least draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00.txt
from July 12th, 2004. No one has commented on it before, but I guess
I can see that your wording is slightly clearer. I'm not sure that it
is worth making an errata over though.
Agreed.
(6) inconsistent style for literal characters
[snip]
Again, I guess I agree, but I don't know if it is a big deal.
Agreed.
(7) incomplete text in example
[snip]
While <sender> and <domain> can be different, none of the examples use
the the include: mechanism, so I think it is reasonable to assume they
the same.
More examples are needed, especially to show differences between
include and redirect. But it is too late for the RFC.
[snip]
Thanks again for such going over the document in such close detail. I
wish we could have incorporated many of the changes much earlier.
Agreed.
You wrote:
I'm a little surprised that Alfred's comments have received zero
feedback from the spf-discuss list.
My reasons:
#1 I generally do not write "me too" kind of responses
#2 Especially that last remark: too bad it wasn't in time.
-------
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