IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 26 March 2024 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DDBC14F68D for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p3Du502g6bh5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [94.198.96.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37C8CC14F5FA for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1711477853; bh=JjDg4EdgS2XOMFGiTwDk/3A8S8UMpzEXOw2WkPAFPIU=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=C1GojZUwpP4DkrIXfTE+Q+wabYWkvjdth3hf6iE2A1F2Xl13teF+cISYZif/mfFn/ 5GzqEJHWLxCNU3T97gtWVzXt2u6EhvcZahbhFnXgP7EvEoOqTEOU9jzACqZjMxGUzc d/y0Zj4h9aAJWNgPfUqsjMD3ow+dU3EhmoKNXiiOb+CMAwogVOnwk9NOVL5S2
Original-Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
Author: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.120] (pcale.tana [::ffff:172.25.197.120]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC0CD.000000006603145D.00001A47; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:30:53 +0100
Message-ID: <8b3fea65-cab2-4c6e-9121-487bf4b607a6@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:30:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20240323185339.DA2DD85FCC3A@ary.qy> <97bdc6e7-0170-4101-8b57-2e8e7d8d72c6@tana.it> <3bfe0df7-d5c8-43e9-9e84-ba74cd1bb470@tana.it> <ada8e730-087f-3aa4-3ee3-95e93e6a3255@taugh.com> <2b914f3d-7219-4bea-b072-490cfd7ea672@tana.it> <958c3876-dc44-ae4e-c7f3-cd38ab1dae04@taugh.com>
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Language: en-US, it-IT
In-Reply-To: <958c3876-dc44-ae4e-c7f3-cd38ab1dae04@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/u3274WYO-D6_AZaWHkUIA_qMgB8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:31:14 -0000

On Tue 26/Mar/2024 16:18:31 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
>>>
>>>   ::00:ffff:12.34.56.78
>>>   0:0:0:0:0:0:ffff:012.034.056.078
>>
>>
>> The latter yields failure running the example program in the inet_pton(3) man 
>> page.  See e.g.
>> https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet_pton.3.html#EXAMPLES


My bad.  After checking RFC 4291, 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:012.034.056.078 is valid.  So 
are 0:0:0:0:0:0:012.034.056.078 or ::12.34.56.78.


> That's yet another reason not to change the XML spec.  Please stop.


No.  To take several years and come up with a syntax which does not cover all 
valid addresses is a sign of incompetence that this WG doesn't deserve, IMHO. 
What do others think?

Let's rather switch to /[0-9a-fA-F.:]+/.  Terse and correct.


Best
Ale
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email