Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy  <[e-mail]> said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>This seems like it's probably legitimate.  Does it need to be fixed in the
>-bis document?

It's already fixed in the current markdown.

FYI, the XML pattern is silly.  It forbids harmless stuff like leading zeros in 01.02.03.04
and doesn't allow some exotic but valid IPv6 forms like ::ffff:12.34.56.78.

It's not worth changing now, but when we do something like this in the
future it's more sensible to have a simpler over-general pattern and a
note saying it's semantically limited to valid values.


>
>-MSK
>
>---------- Forwarded message ---------
>From: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
>Date: Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 8:04 AM
>Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
>To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>Cc: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>
>
>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7489,
>"Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7865
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Technical
>Reported by: Fränz Friederes <[e-mail]>
>
>Section: Appendix C
>
>Original Text
>-------------
><!-- Credit to Roger L. Costello for IPv4 regex
>    http://mailman.ic.ac.uk/pipermail/xml-dev/1999-December/
>          018018.html -->
><!-- Credit to java2s.com for IPv6 regex
>    http://www.java2s.com/Code/XML/XML-Schema/
>          IPv6addressesareeasiertodescribeusingasimpleregex.htm -->
><xs:simpleType name="IPAddress">
>  <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>    <xs:pattern value="((1?[0-9]?[0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]).){3}
>                (1?[0-9]?[0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])|
>                ([A-Fa-f0-9]{1,4}:){7}[A-Fa-f0-9]{1,4}"/>
>  </xs:restriction>
></xs:simpleType>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
><!-- Credit to Roger L. Costello for IPv4 regex
>    http://mailman.ic.ac.uk/pipermail/xml-dev/1999-December/
>          018050.html -->
><!-- Credit to java2s.com for IPv6 regex
>    http://www.java2s.com/Code/XML/XML-Schema/
>          IPv6addressesareeasiertodescribeusingasimpleregex.htm -->
><xs:simpleType name="IPAddress">
>  <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>    <xs:pattern value="((1?[0-9]?[0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\.){3}
>                (1?[0-9]?[0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])|
>                ([A-Fa-f0-9]{1,4}:){7}[A-Fa-f0-9]{1,4}"/>
>  </xs:restriction>
></xs:simpleType>
>
>Notes
>-----
>The IPv4 regex contains a period "." that should be corrected to an escaped
>period "\." As stated in the follow up message of the one referenced in the
>IPv4 regex credit: "I just realized that there is a bug [...] The period
>(.) is a special character meaning 'any character'. To indicate that we
>want a period and not 'any character' the period must be escaped with a
>backslash, i.e., \." Following the XML schema provided in the original
>Appendix C, strings like "1a1a1a1" and "1111111" are considered valid IPv4
>addresses, although they are not usable.
>
>Instructions:
>-------------
>This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
>will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
>use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
>--------------------------------------
>RFC7489 (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-12)
>--------------------------------------
>Title               : Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and
>Conformance (DMARC)
>Publication Date    : March 2015
>Author(s)           : M. Kucherawy, Ed., E. Zwicky, Ed.
>Category            : INFORMATIONAL
>Source              : INDEPENDENT
>Stream              : INDEPENDENT
>Verifying Party     : ISE & Editorial Board
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Alternative: text/html]
>-=-=-=-=-=-