Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt> (Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results) to Proposed Standard

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:27:02 -0500

On Friday, January 06, 2012 01:22:39 PM The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results'
>   <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This is the obvious fix to an obvious bug.  It should go forward.

Scott K

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:41:52 -0800

>   <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

Summary: I support the publication of this draft.

As a editorial nit, the Introduction Section mentions that the memo 
updates the IANA registries.  Erratum # 2617 is also about Section 
2.4.2.  I suggest changing the heading of Section 3 to "Update to 
Section 2.4.2 of RFC 5451" and some rewording of the paragraph:

  The "hardfail" result value for [SPF] (and thus also for [SENDER-ID])
  in Section 2.4.2 of RFC 5451 is replaced with the "fail" result value.

    fail: This client is explicitly not authorized to inject or relay
          mail using the sender's DNS domain.

Note that the update affects the example in Appendix B.5.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:03:30 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 7:42 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt>
> (Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results) to
> Proposed Standard

Hi SM,

>           mail using the sender's DNS domain.

That's a reasonable suggestion, but I think the important thing is to change the registry than to update RFC5451 itself.  If there are any sites that actually used the wrong value found in the original document, they may continue to do so and the definition for it needs to be in effect someplace.

> Note that the update affects the example in Appendix B.5.

There's a separate erratum against the example as well, but that's less of a bug than a registry inconsistency.  We can fix the example whenever we feel like advancing a proper RFC5451bis.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to acknowledging in this draft that the example you cited also has the same error.  Would that suffice?

-MSK

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:13:21 -0800

Hi Murray,
At 22:03 07-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>That's a reasonable suggestion, but I think the important thing is 
>to change the registry than to update RFC5451 itself.  If there are 
>any sites that actually used the wrong value found in the original 
>document, they may continue to do so and the definition for it needs 
>to be in effect someplace.

Ok.

>There's a separate erratum against the example as well, but that's 
>less of a bug than a registry inconsistency.  We can fix the example 
>whenever we feel like advancing a proper RFC5451bis.

Agreed.

>Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to acknowledging in this draft that 
>the example you cited also has the same error.  Would that suffice?

Yes.

Off-topic note, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6434

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:09:00 -0800

> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 1:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt>
> >Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to acknowledging in this draft that the
> >example you cited also has the same error.  Would that suffice?
> 
> Yes.

I've added such an appendix for -02.  Thanks for the suggestion.

-MSK