Re: [spfbis] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7208 (4841)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 31 October 2016 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 AF709129530 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=ERdBx1WM; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=adenXXku
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 2RMcTGXqdXUO for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5732212952E for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.87.25]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9V5u9wF002868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1477893385; x=1477979785; bh=Uld5ov59NvYmt1LjHEEcTR5eZleiP3YsL4QUWrlOiMo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ERdBx1WMGbupRoiHWGVPX6X7PDLjRDb8Tu8NNob41cDMQiPtvIlabCpLY/rfMtvht QAVWcPocjuADcD3uPuQBkXG1QM3Sx770iF/396LQtwblnQou3NEq+U0QihIYfmBYQc yn81rZNDLKE+uiQox3kicfQRglEcE69kQcEgb/s8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1477893385; x=1477979785; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Uld5ov59NvYmt1LjHEEcTR5eZleiP3YsL4QUWrlOiMo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=adenXXkusuN01exohL8GJVV4YS1CE3sRoIb6Cm1pXOD+M7C0PIpeIGIM3u0kfPIfT UlqIV8EHcmH0+1SydNhQ+yyeTlEF1bdCrqF2smK713K9ZakLyCGqYQCUU1UGaC2JFU UPX5wC5CLDYFocj+cqbjQ4emN500fldemhz4QYsg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20161030224616.0cbc7058@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:56:00 -0700
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, scott@kitterman.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161025101445.465D5B81107@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20161025101445.465D5B81107@rfc-editor.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/Ro-rpXLU8LQz-tRHQaV3OXYkN9o>
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, vesely@tana.it
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7208 (4841)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 05:56:34 -0000

Hello,
At 03:14 25-10-2016, 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:
>http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7208&eid=4841
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Editorial
>Reported by: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>;
>
>Section: 3.5.
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>       EXAMPLE.COM.          MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM
>       *.EXAMPLE.COM.        MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM
>       A.EXAMPLE.COM.        MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM
>       *.A.EXAMPLE.COM.      MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM
>
>
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>       EXAMPLE.COM.          MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM.
>       *.EXAMPLE.COM.        MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM.
>       A.EXAMPLE.COM.        MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM.
>       *.A.EXAMPLE.COM.      MX      10      A.EXAMPLE.COM.
>
>
>Notes
>-----
>This is an editorial errata, since it is a punctuation error.
>
>It is not technical, because the example might have implied an 
>$ORIGIN of "." or some other strange setting, while a normative 
>reference --rfc 1035-- makes it very clear that "[d]omain names that 
>end in a dot are called absolute, and are taken as complete."  Hence 
>no technical meaning is affected.

There is a dot at the end of the names in the L.H.S.  It should be 
similar for the R.H.S.  I suggest marking this erratum as "verified".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy