IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [marf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6652 (6579)

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Tue, 11 May 2021 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: marf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810023A1CE4 for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id spL-orSzQZgG for <marf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64293A1CE1 for <marf@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2021 09:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 80350 invoked from network); 11 May 2021 16:11:00 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=139d6.609aac94.k2105; bh=NrMmwXSZj0XpTv6Gj+aEAEvW7Htwgkq1AJt6EmogBx8=; b=yVCsgKjI2zrjtQYLxJQmJRUybxnsD1RsygQc21Dk/alZD3OEq2b3LLRkVUL2c6eHBaeXC8KhEbgb+LOgaFPX89n1jldW56bnlSNgw1OyLKuazgAEzYwjh2vsYhk3rQk3kIn9/kQj31Ekj8uUeEnojhdeP0wn7cQ5RGy0iMhv+6qAONIZvq9O4fJPg8+oUlozri1hLG8mb77pPh955cvbSwx0Tz7zH+k9+PuvaND0DwYCBxYXJRsSqcNjYS1ruR+v1jaH5PnT6KF1RefFqMeeKvvSMHtyabxhazp+VR0nENNUBY4gK4M1yPxCdB+SyNX7AL+vp04Ju20Xc/hNoimFbw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 11 May 2021 16:10:59 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 01E00762B18; Tue, 11 May 2021 12:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA6B762AFA; Tue, 11 May 2021 12:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 12:10:58 -0400
Message-ID: <c82914cb-af4-4e46-be34-b2d0dedc1be6@iecc.com>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: scott@kitterman.com, chaosben@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, marf@ietf.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <01RYWIZU1TYU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20210511145112.A5979F407E4@rfc-editor.org> <01RYWIZU1TYU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/marf/Bimd9vmApBNKb73RoDBD1bXw2tc>
Subject: Re: [marf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6652 (6579)
X-BeenThere: marf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Abuse Report Format working group discussion list <marf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/marf/>
List-Post: <mailto:marf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf>, <mailto:marf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 16:11:09 -0000

> This one is ... interesting, in a pedantic sort of way.

> And finally, there's the question of whether this is a correction or an update.
> I think 1*3DIGIT clearly qualifies as a correction given that's what is in other
> RFCs, but the more restrictive you get the closer you are to this being
> an update.

The current ABNF has two values separated by a slash, which doesn't match 
the text at all.  I'm inclined to go with 1*3DIGIT because I agree that 
implementations will use some version of atoi() and leading zeros don't 
matter.

Has anyone ever implemented this?  The text says to ignore ra= in include=
records but says nothing about redirect= records.  Is that deliberate? 
What happens in the common case that the redirect target is not a 
hostname?


>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> spf-rp-tag = "rp=" 1*12DIGIT "/" 1*12DIGIT
>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> spf-rp-tag = "rp=" "100" / 1*2DIGIT
>
>> Notes
>> -----
>
>> As explained in paragraph 3, the value of the "rp" modifier should be an
>> integer value between 0 and 100. However, the specified abnf does not fit this
>> requirement.
>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC6652 (draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-11)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting Format
>> Publication Date    : June 2012
>> Author(s)           : S. Kitterman
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
>> Area                : Applications
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> marf mailing list
>> marf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
>
> _______________________________________________
> marf mailing list
> marf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
>
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email