Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in RFC 8601, was Question about changes introduced by erratum

[Damian Lukowski <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> resinfo = [CFWS] ";" methodspec [ CFWS reasonspec ]
>             [ CFWS 1*propspec ]
> 
> I think both the erratum and RFC 8601 are wrong, and it should say:
> 
> resinfo = [CFWS] ";" methodspec [ CFWS reasonspec ]
>             1*( CFWS propspec )
> 
> Every implementation I know puts space between multiple propspec's
> which the current syntax wouldn't allow

my understanding was that RFCs decide whether an implementation is
incorrect or in the case of a series, not up-to-date. If the authors
decided to update the RFC instead, then I'd be happy of course.
> That's a mistake in the examples in Appendix B.  The example at the
> bottom of page 21 is correct -- the value for smtp.mailfrom is a
> mailbox, not a domain name.

I assume you mean

> auth=pass smtp.auth=[e-mail] smtp.mailfrom=[e-mail]

I didn't consider this example relevant for the spf-case. For the
auth-case, the right-hand-side is defined in [AUTH] as mailbox and there
are no A-R examples that would state otherwise. [SPF] on the other hand
has an A-R example that is domain-name only, so I assumed that
smtp.mailfrom in spf context was more loosely defined via RFC7001's
pvalue (that is, with the optional local-part@).

Damian