Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (4081)

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Scott's argument, but even if I didn't it wouldn't be
correct to do this in an erratum.  It's a substantive change to the
protocol.  It should be rejected.

Best regards,

A

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 07:19:48PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I believe this should be rejected. 
> 
> RFC7208 doesn't specify that messages should be rejected. A decision to reject is a local policy decision. 5.7.1 is the correct code.
> 
> In any case, draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes updates RFC7208 on this exact question, so the point will shortly be moot anyway. 
> 
> Scott K
> 
> On August 13, 2014 7:07:34 PM EDT, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> 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=4081
> >
> >--------------------------------------
> >Type: Technical
> >Reported by: D. Stussy <[e-mail]>
> >
> >Section: 8.4
> >
> >Original Text
> >-------------
> >(Paragraph 2):  if supported, the 5.7.1 enhanced status code
> >...
> >
> >       550 5.7.1 SPF MAIL FROM check failed:
> >       550 5.7.1 The domain example.com explains:
> >       550 5.7.1 Please see http://www.example.com/mailpolicy.html
> >
> >
> >Corrected Text
> >--------------
> >if supported, the 5.7.7 enhanced status code
> >...
> >
> >       550 5.7.7 SPF MAIL FROM check failed:
> >       550 5.7.7 The domain example.com explains:
> >       550 5.7.7 Please see http://www.example.com/mailpolicy.html
> >
> >
> >Notes
> >-----
> >5.7.1 generally refers to messages refused due to content or LOCAL
> >policies.
> >5.7.7 refers to messages where there is an integrity problem.
> >
> >5.7.7 is a better description for rejecting an unauthorized message due
> >to the application of automatic checking criterion set by remote
> >validation.
> >
> >The author of this errata notes that the IANA is showing a pending
> >addition to the enhanced codes to add SPF-specific error code 5.7.23
> >(in lieu of 5.7.1 or 5.7.7), but currently sees no valid RFC proposing
> >it.  The draft is located at:
> >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-07
> >
> >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 (IESG)
> >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

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]