Re: [spfbis] RFC7208 dual-cidr-length clarification
Jan Schaumann <jschauma@netmeister.org> Wed, 31 August 2022 20:48 UTC
Return-Path: <jschauma@netmeister.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 1E0D9C1527AB for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 13:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netmeister.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnopFCg8kBcv for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from panix.netmeister.org (panix.netmeister.org [IPv6:2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe72:3900]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5998CC14F735 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 13:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by panix.netmeister.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9A15D852CD; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:48:26 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=netmeister.org; s=2022; t=1661978906; bh=9x8pLzxB3V9kldBPNtUt+BSEU6YmNv8xo7rlExhlnmc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=rQd93Fb7y0n9VV1ZJ+1WCERpzEbUj+kwlQxtsMtq/fwSO0TasjHzmnrIFTfyoTsx5 jYMvkSII1S7wy6MuruE6u72RBB7Fk/J2yhDbA/3hHo19hW7tr4BEgXionndcc62cGr Kd53wI7+5Mod1zdcrF2DTaKtIbcShlq6gyEsPB/hW3zhOMFO3UkhLegslmY6Fz/EmX FJ2XOm3V91/JFD5dt8UynfM+8YT6+PftRlOkk73wdSSwnyr+y/cszCEwLupC4gGGXQ VRho7iv/5vrn1b2LpS4mXkAjwXT0GSgzKMx9PhxpghfmdCb89WWJrFpkAHEIQ49xJ1 ADfZxV7XldEPQ==
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:48:26 -0400
From: Jan Schaumann <jschauma@netmeister.org>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20220831204826.GN18101@netmeister.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <0348aab2-a4fb-f479-59ce-d9bb80988730@gluet.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/vH70ROPNHJ2wpHLV1vuLgViJnNU>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] RFC7208 dual-cidr-length clarification
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 20:48:34 -0000
David BÃŒrgin <dbuergin@gluet.ch> wrote: > I interpreted the syntax to allow all of > > mx > mx/24 > mx//64 > mx/24//64 > > for IPv4 or IPv6 CIDR prefix length, both, or neither. Right? Yes, that is my current interpretation, too. Note the last line -- that is the one that seems... awkward? Unexpected? Looking at a few online validators, it seems that that is indeed how it was implemented, so I guess at this point the question whether that was intended is moot. :-) -Jan
- [spfbis] RFC7208 dual-cidr-length clarification Jan Schaumann
- Re: [spfbis] RFC7208 dual-cidr-length clarificati… David Bürgin
- Re: [spfbis] RFC7208 dual-cidr-length clarificati… Jan Schaumann
- Re: [spfbis] RFC7208 dual-cidr-length clarificati… David Bürgin