Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5843)

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 22 August 2019 01:36 UTC

From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com, bydonni8@gmail.com, spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:36:31 -0400
Message-ID: <6353492.6N3PlZknQH@l5580>
In-Reply-To: <20190822010029.F41F2B80DD5@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20190822010029.F41F2B80DD5@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/LmrgIeYSov-FxUYHPDbe9O4viPQ>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5843)
Precedence: list

The  errata is correct in that the string ip4:192.0.2.1 is not a legal dot-
atom.

Based on the WG history, I don't have any indication that the WG thought this 
should be quoted.  I think it's more likely we should be changing the ABNF to 
allow the example as it.

My recommendation is hold for document update so we can review next time RFC 
7208 is updated.

Scott K

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 9:00:29 PM EDT RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208,
> "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email,
> Version 1".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5843
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Jesus Donaldo Osornio <bydonni8@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 9.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Received-SPF: pass (mybox.example.org: domain of
>     myname@example.com designates 192.0.2.1 as permitted sender)
>        receiver=mybox.example.org; client-ip=192.0.2.1;
>        mechanism=ip4:192.0.2.1; envelope-from="myname@example.com";
>        helo=foo.example.com;
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Received-SPF: pass (mybox.example.org: domain of
>     myname@example.com designates 192.0.2.1 as permitted sender)
>        receiver=mybox.example.org; client-ip=192.0.2.1;
>        mechanism="ip4:192.0.2.1"; envelope-from="myname@example.com";
>        helo=foo.example.com;
> 
> Notes
> -----
> There's an error in the last example of this section:
> By the definition of key-value-pair, a "value" can only be a dot-atom or a
> quoted-string. The string ip4:192.0.2.1 in the mechanism key is not a legal
> dot-atom, so it should be surrounded by double quotes, to be a
> quoted-string instead
> 
> 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.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7208 (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of
> Domains in Email, Version 1 Publication Date    : April 2014
> Author(s)           : S. Kitterman
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : SPF Update
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

[spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (584… RFC Errata System
Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 … Scott Kitterman