Re: [apps-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Wed, 04 January 2012 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C1721F84B6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LoYu3FatIaeX for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9084321F84B5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2BF20E4100; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:28:31 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1325647711; bh=bdxxn8gJUgGZzUs9ipYuXxRt3aL3Zf5S7aXlz87ve9k=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=OarNeFk879EElccgd1LXq1y350vPrIbDihPLz3BshNeyMWmBNvSzh9SYQW/ohsVw2 qNSUEUa8dbeTwazNWhQWatuLVs6TMJ9GlpvthVHJNWJiV4NVwDoAvDjGGrPJvCXWtm QIu8TE7d64PKnpNCx2TqNAHskfeJ1TeUdUTORE3s=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F40EF20E409F; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:28:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:28:30 -0500
Message-ID: <1626891.r5HM3dHTq5@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.7.3 (Linux/3.0.0-14-generic-pae; KDE/4.7.3; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120103145134.099ad970@resistor.net>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C156DF@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120103145134.099ad970@resistor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:28:32 -0000

On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 03:11:34 PM SM wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> 
> At 14:46 03-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> >I've started this individual submission to correct the SPF entry in
> >the Authentication-Results result name table from "hardfail" to
> >"fail", to match what RFC4408 (and presumably RFC4408bis)
> >says.  This corrects an approved erratum against RFC5451.
> >
> >I suggested this as a first-tier work item for spfbis but there was
> >resistance to doing so for the sake of keeping its charter lean;
> >since it's really a lightweight effort, I decided to move ahead with
> >it on my own.
> 
> May I suggest that you consider a few points:
> 
>   1. If this work is dependent upon 4408bis, the author has an incentive to
> see 4408bis published. :-)

This work is not dependent on 4408bis.  This is a defect in 5451 that exists 
relative to 4408.  IIRC I even brought it up in the working group, but didn't 
prevail at the time.

I have some opinions about other issues that might be addressed, but I think 
this is just a plain bug in 5451 that ought to be fixed.

Scott K