Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 - Fully parse record *first*

[Kurt Andersen <[e-mail]>]

That leaves the ambiguity of handling -all in embedded (include:) records.
What should be done if the sample foobar mechanism is being referenced in
an included record?

--Kurt


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 09:21:42 PM Stuart Gathman wrote:
> > On 04/17/2013 12:50 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > > As Scott mentioned, things have been very quiet for this WGLC.  It
> > > helps if there are people who read the draft as you did above as I can
> > > determine whether the working group reviewed the draft and is ok with
> it.
> >
> > Minor nit:
> >
> > Section 5.1
> >
> > Mechanisms listed after "all" MUST be ignored.
> >
> > Sure, section 4.6 says
> >
> > If there are any syntax errors
> >     anywhere in the record, check_host() returns immediately with the
> >     result "permerror", without further interpretation.
> >
> > But an implementer could misinterpret this as saying the following
> > should get Fail rather than PermError:
> >
> > v=spf1 mx -all foobar
> >
> > Section 4.6 doesn't make it clear you have to parse everything
> > (returning permerror on syntax errors), and only *then* interpret. The
> > wording makes it sound like you could parse and interpret one term at a
> > time, stopping when you get a match or syntax error.
>
> I would tend to favor the MUST be ignored over the returns immediately
> with a
> permerror (yielding the opposed view of the preferred result from yours).
>  I
> think this confirms there's an ambiguity in the current draft.
>
> If I take your view that it's better to raise the error (unknown
> mechanism),
> the perhaps changing the 5.1 language would help.  Adding the sentence
> before
> in, for more context:
>
> > Mechanisms after "all" will never be tested.  Mechanisms listed after
> "all"
> > MUST be ignored.
>
> Perhaps if we combine those it helps:
>
> > Mechanisms after "all" MUST not be tested.  Mechanisms listed after "all"
> > will be ignored for all purposes except syntax error evaluation.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>