Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5228)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 23:09 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 3043212F2B2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no 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=bBiC0rMr; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=cfbQRo4E
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 LHWGePojYQ2k for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4832612F29F for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.225.246.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w11N8sdB024349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1517526556; x=1517612956; bh=0iHnLJCkV6W92Lpvdym6DQSR57Wj8MUMQ2UOKkRVOSY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bBiC0rMrHCjmWyI/mj/w/IuzTHTInOXVaDPRQaL7PntEFkiUjuzaM61Qo+L6+s4TG QHBx7qZsscYx4hEikgSUFdwurH/kCvPkwJ5NjSvwi1Ex6S7TdeWlqViKCQdaiIgDAg S0RyODCT9Va4aOVPt3eSvPJg7lqiMSJbv5g4yzG4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1517526556; x=1517612956; i=@elandsys.com; bh=0iHnLJCkV6W92Lpvdym6DQSR57Wj8MUMQ2UOKkRVOSY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cfbQRo4E8QQoPymMxZ5uB3ZPnMm7x98HVOD9z+45URC5+Goyce6RVzOSWc6eG7sYv 7LNsXRba0agNS4s+VYemijZN/K6OuhfHLZTHJOhhhtJeS/kae20PyhF2F9fpFHiOwb J0z3bUAN21RWkPMFjlLRr5z8zjNfAqw1+8U93JKY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180201150119.12cccdf0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 15:08:36 -0800
To: david@dev.barlinq.com
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, scott@kitterman.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
In-Reply-To: <20180104193300.6B721B8113C@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20180104193300.6B721B8113C@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/V1kKMherURNE4bspmRc_gUNM7Qk>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5228)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 23:09:41 -0000

Hi David,
At 11:33 AM 04-01-2018, RFC Errata System wrote:
>I have not reflowed the text so it can be more clear what I changed.
>
>         This mechanism is slow
>
>In fact, if all the DNS records are in place, Errata 5227 is accounted
>for, and the single PTR query is discounted, this mechanism produces
>no more additional DNS queries than mechanism "a".  I.e. it produces
>one A (or AAAA) query.  It is not slow.
>
>         it places a large burden on the .arpa name servers
>
>In fact, it requires 1 PTR query, for however many ptr mechanisms are
>in the SPF record.  Further, most mail servers already do this PTR
>query, to report the information on the "Received" line.  Even if a
>seperate daemon is used to the SPF check, the data should already be
>in a local caching name server.

If I understood correctly, this mechanism is not slow in your 
implementation.  That does not mean that it is not slow in other 
implementations.  I suggest rejecting this erratum.  If there is a 
future update to the RFC, the text in that section could be reviewed 
and a decision taken then.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy