On 05/19/2006 10:06, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
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.
Me too.
(3) [suspected] ABNF issue (#1)
[snip]
no comment, not enough insight.
I'm not certain, but I believe that what's in there is correct.
I think he goes astray here:
Alfred HÎnes <ah(_at_)tr-sys(_dot_)de> writes:
This means that something like
mechanism="ip4:192.0.2.1"
might appear as a <key-value-pair> in a Received-SPF header field,
with the <mechanism> included after the "=" as a <quoted-string>
-- pretty in line with the explanations on page 26.
In the ABNF one finds:
mechanism = ( all / include
/ A / MX / PTR / IP4 / IP6 / exists )
so his premise that "ip4:192.0.2.1" is a mechanism is, I believe, false. That
said, looking at the ABNF, I'm not sure where I would get to 192.0.2.1 to go
into the value part of the key-value-pair. Either the ABNF is missing
something or I'm completely misreading it (my money's on me misreading it
since this is the first time I've really looked hard at the "Received-SPF:"
part of the ABNF.
On 05/19/2006 10:06, Alex van den Bogaerdt continued:
(4) ABNF issue (#2)
[snip]
This appears to be an error to me. good catch.
dito.
me too.
(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.
Agree. If there is going to be an errata anyway, then I think this is worth
putting in, but I wouldn't do errata just for this one.
(6) inconsistent style for literal characters
[snip]
Again, I guess I agree, but I don't know if it is a big deal.
Agreed.
I think it's not a big deal. This isn't a MIB that we expect to be subject to
some automatic processing. Problem for a computer, but not the human eye.
(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.
Yes. I think para 4.1 explains this pretty clearly.
[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.
Me too.
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
Me too.
#2 Especially that last remark: too bad it wasn't in time.
Yep.
Scott K
-------
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