[spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6432)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 17 February 2021 09:26 UTC

To: scott@kitterman.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: me@kasparetter.com, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210217092630.8977BF40759@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:26:30 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/ZRr3DM5XKehKhEgMZcOZYKiZqeQ>
Subject: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6432)
Precedence: list

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/eid6432

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Kaspar Etter <me@kasparetter.com>

Section: 4.4

Original Text
-------------
In accordance with how the records are published (see Section 3
above), a DNS query needs to be made for the <domain> name, querying
for type TXT only.

Corrected Text
--------------
?

Notes
-----
Request for clarification: Are CNAME indirections allowed or, in other words, do they have to be followed during record lookup? If yes, do they count towards the DNS lookup limits as defined in section 4.6.4? If yes, the following sentence has to be adapted as well: "SPF implementations MUST limit the total number of those terms to 10 during SPF evaluation, to avoid unreasonable load on the DNS." If the answer to the first question is no, then this should be made clear in section 4.4.

Please note that whether using CNAMEs is a good or bad idea is irrelevant to my question. I also know that you can't add a CNAME record to an apex domain but SPF is not limited to such domains. I assume the answer/consensus will be the same for the initial, `a`, `include`, `exists` and `redirect` lookups. If not, this should also be clarified, of course.

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 (643… RFC Errata System