spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Test suite update

2007-03-24 21:09:21
Julian Mehnle wrote:
 
From a theoretical PoV, in a context that doesn't allow local name inter-
pretations (e.g. SPF records), "museum" -- with or without a trailing dot
- -- is an FQDN.  No questions about it.

+1

From a practical PoV, SPFv1 doesn't support it, and this isn't something
we can fix with minor tweaks to the v=spf1 grammar.

We could decree that it's invalid in chapter 4.8 for consistency with
the <domain-spec> construct always requiring more than one label (in
the absence of macros).

We could also decree that a single trailing dot found in <target-name>
is silently removed, and after that it's always added for proper DNS
FQDN queries (bypassing any local "search lists").  But actually I
think that's understood, and nobody needs it in prose somewhere.

There's also the issue of erroneous DNS queries to the root servers.

The 2821 author (John) apparently thinks that this problem is slightly
exaggerated, and nothing that needs to be addressed in 2821bis.  I've
asked him if he's sure, or if he should better ask the DNSOP folks.

This is however an issue where I won't take the next 2821bis draft as
gospel, for that I want something that survived IETF and IESG review.

Of course we could also ask them, the Council decided to contact two
DNSOP contributors anyway about an unrelated issue, and maybe asking
also for advice about this relatively harmless detail helps to break
the ice.  BTW, we could also ask Stephane, also a DNSOP regular.
 
<target-name> isn't an element of the v=spf1 grammar.  It's a semantic
variable.

Yes, with a somewhat underspecified semantic.  We like predictable
deterministic results as far as DNS allows it, and so I'd say that
"use /dev/random to pick PermError or TempError" isn't in the spirit
of v=spf1... :-)

BTW, just a thought, we can also post an I-D with "updates 4408".
In fact we can post the errata as I-D, for a recent example see
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fajardo-dime-diameter-errata>:

|                Diameter Specification Errata and Issues
|               draft-fajardo-dime-diameter-errata-00.txt
[...]
| Abstract
|
|   This document is a compilation the defects found in the DIAMETER
|   protocol specification based on interoperability event(s) and
general
|   implementation discussions.  This document is meant to be a
companion
|   document to RFC3588 and provides a historical reference to the
|   changes that will incorporated in RFC3588's BIS document.

I like that approach (as a model for us).

Frank


-------
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/?list_id=735