[spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6216)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 26 June 2020 10:57 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 A12DE3A1166 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 kn6ZXC9DgRQE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B1AC3A08FA for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E6065F40739; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: scott@kitterman.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: dbuergin@gluet.ch, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200626105645.E6065F40739@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:56:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/l3R4Mi6owp7fiVh_35UG-tjUoC8>
Subject: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6216)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:57:02 -0000
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/eid6216 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: David Bürgin <dbuergin@gluet.ch> Section: A.4 Original Text ------------- ptr._spf.example.com. SPF "v=spf1 -ptr +all" Corrected Text -------------- ptr._spf.example.com. TXT "v=spf1 -ptr:example.com +all" Notes ----- The example in appendix A.4, 'Multiple Requirements Example', does not work as intended. In the example, the SPF record at ptr._spf.example.com contains the directive '-ptr'. When this directive is evaluated, the <target-name> is equal to 'ptr._spf.example.com'. An input <ip> such as 192.0.2.10, which has a PTR record pointing to 'example.com', will fail to match, as that domain is not equal to nor a subdomain of 'ptr._spf.example.com'. In other words, given the DNS setup of appendix A, there are no inputs that fulfil the requirement for matching this ptr mechanism. The example can be fixed by supplying an appropriate <domain-spec>: replace '-ptr' with '-ptr:example.com'. 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 (621… RFC Errata System
- Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 … John Levine