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

Damian Lukowski <> Sun, 22 March 2020 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01C23A0816 for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:34:56 -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 Jkna37EFGORP for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:34:55 -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 0090B3A0814 for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 03:34:53 -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 :references:from:from:subject:subject:x-amavis-category; s= dkim01; t=1584873292; x=1586687693; bh=KxX18pWFRY61fQv3ysMgPYrSD OvEX+uyt+m/N/oXrts=; b=NMmAjGG7I3UBPY3Mz0i7SMeW5SPWMtt4p8ufidL6Y dCKukz1Wh7t9Rn5TNKNBNhRN3kQ2kPDepzupuhP3UQaSTchbHhVP31cmhKRMNg4R C6tP8jzFz46DDS97q1KLk9OFeZg98Uo+xbgs/sD6nQNGi3w3Mv7skEZt5IBcILN3 vU=
X-Amavis-Category:; category=CleanTag
From: Damian Lukowski <>
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20200322010404.7053C165D622@ary.qy> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 11:35:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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 10:34:57 -0000

>> 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.

Also please note that spaces between propspecs are not against RFC8601 -
they would use the optional CFWS at the end of a pvalue. It's just the
fact that they are not mandatory what bothered me.