Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 - Fully parse record *first*

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 09:59:25 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Mon 22/Apr/2013 19:18:58 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, April 22, 2013 06:37:56 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >> On Mon 22/Apr/2013 18:06:41 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 22, 2013 05:48:33 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >>>> On Mon 22/Apr/2013 16:04:11 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>>>>> Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested.  Mechanisms listed after
> >>>>>> "all" MUST be ignored.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Perhaps if we combine those it helps:
> >>>>>> Mechanisms after "all" MUST not be tested.  Mechanisms listed after
> >>>>>> "all" will be ignored for all purposes except syntax error
> >>>>>> evaluation.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Does that help?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Nope, IMHO it's better as is now.  That is:
> >>>> 
> >>>> CURRENT
> >>>> 
> >>>>    If there are any syntax errors
> >>>> 
> >>>> EQUIVALENT-FROM-A-PRAGMATIC-POV
> >>>> 
> >>>>    If any syntax errors are found
> >>>>    
> >>>>    anywhere in the record, check_host() returns immediately with the
> >>>>    result "permerror", without further interpretation.
> >>>> 
> >>>> See also http://tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/ticket/26
> >>>> and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02765.html
> >>> 
> >>> Right, but how can you find a syntax error in something you MUST ignore?
> >> 
> >> You have to parse it anyway, as it might be a modifier, e.g.
> >> 
> >>    "v=spf1 a -all ra=rfc6652"
> > 
> > That's true, but as soon as I determine it's a mechanism, I ignore it, so
> > the ambiguity still exists.
> 
> If you determine it's a valid something, there's no syntax error.

Anyone else?

I still think Stuart's point is valid, but I'm not sure the best way to fix it.  
I also think it would only matter in rare cases, but not so rare we can just 
say "Meh, corner case." and move on.

Scott K