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

Damian Lukowski <> Sun, 22 March 2020 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1882F3A07DF for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19nrsY0YDPi8 for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 360333A07BA for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; 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:; category=CleanTag
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20200322010404.7053C165D622@ary.qy>
From: Damian Lukowski <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:06:59 -0000


> 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@).