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

John Levine <> Sun, 22 March 2020 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4681B3A07BA for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.b=HsTSLd49; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.b=eIdn/rlb
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id svCxfo_Zr3RM for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 355793A0814 for <>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 07:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 57290 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2020 14:50:38 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; =?utf-8?q?h=3Ddate?= =?utf-8?q?=3Amessage-id=3Afrom=3Ato=3Acc=3Asubject=3Ain-reply-to=3Amime-ver?= =?utf-8?q?sion=3Acontent-type=3Acontent-transfer-encoding=3B?= =?utf-8?q?s=3Ddfc8=2E5e777b3e=2Ek2003=3B_bh=3DVrZBuEZdoIzwVR8OLi4RVoki7E+q6?= =?utf-8?q?tepFbSrqEg/MDg=3D=3B_b=3DHsTSLd49KmacBDyqIkvZv3yNqydUUJY0kW9DAMhz?= =?utf-8?q?qoofoI7nhlJnG8BFXlCdznedOpi7oYoB0E1ofbBXGG20IDI0Yl+l1R8T9Q/btWi11?= =?utf-8?q?n2EHL1NZk2X44kIh0TxgtWZ0U2ljfeQ9ATlrlv7/kvaHB3nLAjwFOC/PcQXXjMPoW?= =?utf-8?q?WrUKjEhcVI3+lVgDUPsg5GWq8yS7rs9tsr7wvFxFjnjzHWso5nmEh3CYdCi9okDir?= =?utf-8?q?0hCLR0LzGQLDbeVxbNRW+?=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; =?utf-8?q?h=3Ddate?= =?utf-8?q?=3Amessage-id=3Afrom=3Ato=3Acc=3Asubject=3Ain-reply-to=3Amime-ver?= =?utf-8?q?sion=3Acontent-type=3Acontent-transfer-encoding=3B?= =?utf-8?q?s=3Ddfc8=2E5e777b3e=2Ek2003=3B_bh=3DVrZBuEZdoIzwVR8OLi4RVoki7E+q6?= =?utf-8?q?tepFbSrqEg/MDg=3D=3B_b=3DeIdn/rlbal8kAHyDXtosSRNXtzDRMZ0X3Lc81wX/?= =?utf-8?q?VyXzxXxv682h8yyHahQsTUfIZQJCHIkV2vHqusV4/6keL5fw38n1kUVtub5k/9KvL?= =?utf-8?q?fZQhAcDTMSNjtgDBqJCpzkVus9xPfCgripb3V+/rWCOJHGC/yqIPNgPraCL3AlJtZ?= =?utf-8?q?DVtMmihVP+kOS7llnvdZrjvqztVKzBNITyZB63LX9WlCCUZeT5KohHh5egituDmQ2?= =?utf-8?q?baY3zzTEiCdN2Dv30yJb5?=
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 22 Mar 2020 14:50:38 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 736F616607CE; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 22 Mar 2020 10:50:37 -0400
Message-Id: <20200322145038.736F616607CE@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
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 14:50:53 -0000

In article <> you write:
>>> 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.

In general you're right, but it sometimes happens that the RFC has
mistakes and what it says is not what the WG intended.  In this case
I'm quite sure that the intent is that spaces between propspecs are
required and the ABNF in 8601 is wrong.  Erratum 5435 misunderstood
how ABNF works and somehow we all missed that.

If you look through the archives of the WG you'll see that 8601 is
intended to be a compatible update to 7601, and as you noted the
ABNF change is definitely not compatible.