Re: [dmarc-ietf] [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435)

Peter Occil <> Wed, 25 July 2018 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437A9130E02 for <>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s0lpAtpCa-PQ for <>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD9E124C04 for <>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s1-v6so3638693ybk.3 for <>; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance:in-reply-to :references; bh=h5RRW6aKJmg7EEA5c/zDgxQZHFVr+susGgsP02Oue0I=; b=ZXQMebUaTC7kRfxiOb7nQmGQaomjVeyGDEPKzvtxwhy7BXHmqkTkN1bXv2MZTyWZF8 G5Q3CE+LOphUbjTIAJlewiJexpY5LhwA8sgi3hHJ0KVbA4f6/KPwue6nXvHbf+X2VP1p whU+rl6XutWxypOdppJgUHD/lOLcBa/KaLfAIm4UBj+YQeYi87iKvbOn6QaQAEaWpMnv HGHx4TsfljKAs1jA0u/5dITaeSiEYRLAFIsZTlbTFKiSPE9ciUodE08B1AabhajRy15a 0bpGTXB98ofLiqPZkTU7nBcDoDWJuMRxznAiaQ3PXg60eLNvDeLCJtV3NcKp9CQsTxjQ Oeaw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date :importance:in-reply-to:references; bh=h5RRW6aKJmg7EEA5c/zDgxQZHFVr+susGgsP02Oue0I=; b=QamZbvd0u8oFUc4udNFcOEBl7RmSdYZm0ibbOnnri2znuCyEBCp3HAQMNwQB9jvlW7 RHatw2IpZgLmPIhSQl3BvakDjZg8kwX2WuXG0yP1/SPTdOkiVbr47Lv4KMsymehqjoFG //dgTxeKLjHUQXgpQ0BjCMcwPoFgQeqlP0Ze+TBh7oMqGyL1aw/XQ0qoJQHHEDlmXaIn Ce9PuU0RzcNTbIOp/kfkYpvJln2r9jA2JBmpqONf2K9PuG3E7TLVFgekg+4rZPMK0mP+ +odRCbTWuTmauw2iXv7Ai/h8ldGrtfKQDokZ/5v8fX8KFrNspdd8Bu/uiQ7qPGeC5lFr a1Jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGTagDHmgGgtYQ7D1XFiMhgB++YMkgmCS7lYpDQSnh+yfgLOJYM XEF+gOZ05p3AZOIJ7kO0Vlx9Itvo
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpf5OfNE3Y1jTHgc6VrnPnxIbBqf9CQIKGM3XUQZOSPSx7pr2wD5ANHiuf6UeqqLgnQHEV2RjQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a25:80c6:: with SMTP id c6-v6mr12909771ybm.4.1532558351283; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:192:4e00:596:4df2:750b:2643:3b97? ([2601:192:4e00:596:4df2:750b:2643:3b97]) by with ESMTPSA id q127-v6sm15679219ywq.83.2018. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Jul 2018 15:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
From: Peter Occil <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:39:11 -0400
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_EF4D575F-4E3E-41F3-87A5-37B536B034EA_"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 22:39:14 -0000

Please take note: I have withdrawn this erratum.  This is because there would be optional CFWS (rather than required CFWS) between propspecs, which is actually erroneous.


From: Peter Occil
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 7:54 AM
To: Dale R. Worley; RFC Errata System
Subject: RE: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435)

On further thought, it is indeed incorrect.  Therefore, the errata submission is withdrawn.


From: Dale R. Worley
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 10:36 PM
To: RFC Errata System
Subject: Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7601 (5435)

I think that the erratum is, strictly speaking, incorrect.  I've not
worked through examples in detail, but you can see that each propspec
contains exactly one "=" (other than in certain quoted contexts), which
makes it unlikely that two successive propspecs could be parsed as a
single propspec.  If there really is an ambiguity, the way to
demonstrate it is to provide an example.