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

Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de> Sun, 22 March 2020 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc@arcsin.de>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1882F3A07DF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arcsin.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19nrsY0YDPi8 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scalar.arcsin.de (scalar.arcsin.de [185.162.250.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360333A07BA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=arcsin.de; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-language:content-type :content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:date:message-id:from :from:references:subject:subject:x-amavis-category; s=dkim01; t= 1584871611; x=1586686012; bh=DPTyc+YF+2TavpcsnBwclnW3pB9asD1Cx36 hqiOcD5E=; b=PKUz5ZPEPCCH6BcU4Jj6ocYLz75MaQp0rFMoBeBHQjSIOiMmZxz poG/C0OLjRKWS/60RVfnhi3XgndWVW+nxpo4ArWkP6IBx8mzTyeqKt5hZzdmouAs FeDPJUx08arvxUhjbFaWEOTdWY++dEt6VLRZuGInrDaQJNmyayYpMN1g=
X-Amavis-Category: scalar.arcsin.de; category=CleanTag
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200322010404.7053C165D622@ary.qy>
From: Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de>
Message-ID: <caf224ea-faed-138d-be4e-3adaad6d836d@arcsin.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 11:07:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200322010404.7053C165D622@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/EHtjq7Xp2jvKPyRvckHq0TsTxyQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:21:35 -0700
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in RFC 8601, was Question about changes introduced by erratum
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:06:59 -0000

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=client@c.example smtp.mailfrom=bob@b.example

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