IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Revisit: Issue #36: RFC 2119 key words

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Sat, 09 February 2013 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C5D21F85E2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:07:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pvTScojt-xNF for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A07521F85DA for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 09:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA9C20E411A; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:07:51 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1360429672; bh=zF2X0xjnfo5IYjq3CFuB6ZoSKy+QiZpVuzOuZUDNCnk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jz7Z7EYL9ZFg9ejs6sx5/MPHLLzqzfZDs52Jdrah76RhHRmemsbid7zhv1yxiqBvq ZlU9iqt0w/dFMgY58fZ41rmm7SszDNz0zuXXt/Nux7UinFL6JlT97q0l3Zfy8Qzy56 WH2Y1hU2O0gS20uV5PHdQjp4qU1e7guywwMbOPA0=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (0.sub-70-192-198.myvzw.com [70.192.198.0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE90B20E4085; Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:07:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:07:50 -0500
Message-ID: <1393849.RHELxDUEac@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.4 (Linux/3.5.0-23-generic; KDE/4.9.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130209081508.0b16eb98@resistor.net>
References: <CAL0qLwYvJaZ2NZV+xUkCSfbm6Wsy=4AkEGLqkNOxQrwdaUQqfg@mail.gmail.com> <5624408.myXgWtMdf7@scott-latitude-e6320> <6.2.5.6.2.20130209081508.0b16eb98@resistor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Revisit: Issue #36: RFC 2119 key words
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:07:53 -0000

On Saturday, February 09, 2013 08:46:39 AM SM wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> At 07:51 09-02-2013, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >That rather looses the point about IPv4 mapped addresses.  It's in there
> >specifically because people were getting it wrong.  I'm happy to word it in
> >a better way, I think we need to be explicit on the subject.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> I would have missed the issue if Barry Leiba did not comment about
> that text.  I spent some time going through various RFCs related to
> the subject.  I concluded that it was easier to avoid the subject of
> "IPv4-mapped IPv6 address" as it is not easy to fix.

I don't think not mentioning it is a good option.  I'll figure something out.

Scott K

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status