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

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 01 February 2018 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E4512F2B2 for <>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=ZptG3JAR; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=PRNkJ8SG
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TS0yIT2eY35r for <>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1745112F29F for <>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 15:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (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;; 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;; s=mail; t=1517526549; x=1517612949;; 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: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:58:08 -0800
From: S Moonesamy <>
Cc:,, RFC Errata System <>,,,,,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (5227)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.

S. Moonesamy