Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5227)

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 B1E4512F2B2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:19 -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=ZptG3JAR; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=PRNkJ8SG
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 TS0yIT2eY35r for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:18 -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 1745112F29F for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:17 -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 w11N8sd9024349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1517526549; x=1517612949; bh=iC6t93p/b6ocYFzQSbOP6IC2Grz64ck+X63PumxT+Xk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZptG3JARO/2C8wcch9sgBQokYt0iWN5ZQnYUET/tp6FDJH/uSDxp/gG+oB1/dni8G IUoL7ED/eK+Q6zJlI1yrylMNKZQYbPSlcBLGi2hYtxk+l+lc7BV7asxnrdnI/jtY3D 6Pfii+jOeM65JMqhoyesJogF5dNh4r1O9ltyFmFw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1517526549; x=1517612949; i=@elandsys.com; bh=iC6t93p/b6ocYFzQSbOP6IC2Grz64ck+X63PumxT+Xk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PRNkJ8SGVgiXw5QNf1x/I1pWKMygkdjkX+d+NS/W1H/jRi82xsYybJPlWNQmqj4G3 sQeh83csjZgzvN2Kgm89F0THz5OT6+/mTJAWyI9AX8rnDD5Fgrd/wvMn5BcKbdcZ7N B+vgfjs347ijZTopWag8df8oHAqObD41RTXjXweU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20180201144714.12ccb828@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:58:08 -0800
To: david@dev.barlinq.com
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, scott@kitterman.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
In-Reply-To: <20180104191827.3ED49B81099@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20180104191827.3ED49B81099@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/Zq-1ohV33TBq0O4L0kvAbKaVTcI>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5227)
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 23:09:20 -0000

Hi David,
At 11:18 AM 04-01-2018, RFC Errata System wrote:
>As specified, the RFC calls for all names to be validated, even 
>those that can be immediately discarded because they do not 
>match.   The RFC should call for the local-only operation to be done 
>first.  While it may be argued that the RFC doesn't require the 
>order, implementers shouldn't be misled.
>
>My corrected text probably needs editorial work.

I'll suggest "Hold for Document Update" for this as it looks like a 
significant change to that section.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy