Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non-implemented mechanism

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 14 January 2016 15:37 UTC

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160114071739.0e0ec630@resistor.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 07:36:41 -0800
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <5695253F.6060702@tana.it>
References: <5695253F.6060702@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/4UjKJVj9IsyR14FVB_9gUEjJEzs>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non-implemented mechanism
Precedence: list

Hi Alessandro,
At 08:09 12-01-2016, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>RFC 7208 doesn't seem to be very clear on the requirements for "exists"
>mechanisms.  I don't know if that deserves an errata.

Section 5 lists "exists" as a designated sender mechanism.

>4.6.2.  *Mechanisms*
>
>The second paragraph there may be a good point to pin an errata:
>
>OLD
>    When a mechanism is evaluated, one of three things can happen: it can
>    match, not match, or return an exception.
>
>NEW
>    When a mechanism is evaluated, one of three things can happen: it can
>    match, not match, or return an exception.  Non-implemented mechanisms
>    MUST NOT return an exception.
>
>Better ideas?

The suggested text is about non-implemented mechanisms.  There is a 
"do not use" mechanism.  Would that be a non-implemented 
mechanism?  There isn't an explanation for the "MUST NOT" in the 
suggested text.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

[spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non-imp… Alessandro Vesely
Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non… Scott Kitterman
Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non… S Moonesamy
Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non… Tim Draegen
Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non… Alessandro Vesely
Re: [spfbis] Result of record evaluation with non… Alessandro Vesely