From nobody Thu Apr  3 14:18:23 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51151A023F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  3 Apr 2014 14:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.61
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 lkkdX4mFtz2m for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  3 Apr 2014 14:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3090B1A0173 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu,  3 Apr 2014 14:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s33LHqD6018762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1396559885; bh=4AIHB3m1G6HLkdNiYBKPaZyzQGTMFd17xaOOr0hT2+4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=WHh1WHq0y7StXoDaWHELV9xGXAYuYnymZxFDPqHmK4o6J1gQk6AnLJan1XnhcBJaY oPT8wHsT64hp993FzEf4YWbR9rwNbpzqekXVJuOEk84+i2Glrr27wmzbgHycPNmZ1l V35l6kKv485fZHM1Nx5sRahVqrHCQ0tqLkUUtm+I=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1396559885; i=@elandsys.com; bh=4AIHB3m1G6HLkdNiYBKPaZyzQGTMFd17xaOOr0hT2+4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=VCSXGtwfIRmx0joZ6t0+64bCkC86FIViSb1seiP4oQgpyDCv2BFS554eHPBj9h8xP XzhT5gYnRgQVoCCM3D6FT8CdylpsisrAsl5CZju+YE6OdO6HuA+ZdafE9RfSkFRnCo s2O8ekc6+29yt10zIkcLc0+QHyAz6otulqqlbMR8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 14:17:49 -0700
To: spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/x1a9lxybIrcKJUFO56E5-mTi6kk
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 03 Apr 2014 21:18:21 -0000

Hello,

The following note is being added at the end of Section 4.8 of 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis (see RFC 4408 Errata for history):

   'Note: Historically, this document has made no provisions for how to
    handle <domain-spec>s, or macro-expansions thereof, that are
    syntactically invalid per [RFC1035], such as names with empty labels
    (e.g., "foo..example.com") or overlong labels (more than
    63 characters).  For mechanisms, some implementations treat such
    names as not-match and for modifiers silently ignore them, while
    other implementations will throw a "permerror" in this case.  The
    outcome for an unexpected <domain-spec> without macros might even
    differ from that for an unexpected <target-name> after macro
    expansion.'

I'll assume that the working group is okay with this change if nobody 
speaks up.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)


From nobody Fri Apr  4 01:48:24 2014
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771D01A0453 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  4 Apr 2014 01:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.432
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 KbpkjoFET8q9 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  4 Apr 2014 01:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9271A0452 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri,  4 Apr 2014 01:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1396601263; bh=dvGdl3TmUZNy7zDNvzjIiroEIBMGRfAVAGcvteTO5TQ=; l=1774; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=nvzwr6vb0Qaltbiy3G2cM/+s2uWezoT3h6cfVV2tzwveYgP59pECGTj/t4OXZ9ZWz 17UP/wdfkIVqte9diT8qqOsQwZ/NdGpqKWvwAiEzi+le16A2Gb3O0i3UxitwjME381 0cpRVEkOqU52yGpHeCQo3zKRmKWhaM0a4cK2SnEE=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:47:42 +0200 id 00000000005DC048.00000000533E71AE.000015EF
Message-ID: <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:47:41 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/6Nqgh-ZPcQCqL0Fx0fjzuV4wZzQ
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 04 Apr 2014 08:48:23 -0000

Hi,

On Thu 03/Apr/2014 23:17:49 +0200 S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
> The following note is being added at the end of Section 4.8 of
> draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis (see RFC 4408 Errata for history):
> 
>   'Note: Historically, this document has made no provisions for how to
>    handle <domain-spec>s, or macro-expansions thereof, that are
>    syntactically invalid per [RFC1035], such as names with empty labels
>    (e.g., "foo..example.com") or overlong labels (more than
>    63 characters).  For mechanisms, some implementations treat such
>    names as not-match and for modifiers silently ignore them, while
>    other implementations will throw a "permerror" in this case.  The
>    outcome for an unexpected <domain-spec> without macros might even
>    differ from that for an unexpected <target-name> after macro
>    expansion.'
> 
> I'll assume that the working group is okay with this change if nobody
> speaks up.

I agree on adding a note.  However, I don't agree with the wording
proposed in the Errata, reported to the list on February 22, 2012:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00476.html

That wording was discussed on this list.  Dave and Scott came up with
a better version on May 8, 2013:

   Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
   defining correct handling of syntactically invalid domain-specs or
   macro-expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
   names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
   that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
   to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
   while others return a "permerror" exception.

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03699.html
   (s/at no-match/as no-match/)

Ale


From nobody Sat Apr  5 09:44:36 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEE41A03EA for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat,  5 Apr 2014 09:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.37
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 Wv_ege9zzK69 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat,  5 Apr 2014 09:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC931A0422 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat,  5 Apr 2014 09:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.136.88]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s35GiCD6019068 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1396716264; bh=+93L7SOGKjf9FvbFRTYDlzDzwZDe/IoqB2nTEaAYxqY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=41rIYiBO6lIRAEQAIqVWhlFQZprIXR7UZRhESiKRfjyH0zaN0+LALvnQZjAaxeksj R4pgGFUGJvdbz368CB/gRSZpT/xH10/Wl6k1afJLz/XXHWPve2XI0XqOD5XwDn7fiD LShh5LLNHeGv1aYx7Kc8S1fU9+FLGbFYGlbPJYxs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1396716264; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+93L7SOGKjf9FvbFRTYDlzDzwZDe/IoqB2nTEaAYxqY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=0wh3bOsAsYX0hMgFfFmyvvZNwVBiqEMY080wIss+TaEcfLQq5cE5P/dBylPMZeK9R 5JMR2T1HsvK2ktBLUQJ2QFGeKFSXeXmPlayvplQKCxtNaJBIvKTJNMyDWOQvqqRcyE qb3BfBn4olGPkHFpCVMWkTiGU7HkW92Pq6lhYtUs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:13:35 -0700
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/k_YX13zEtlUO3qRuyfqDkiqXAwQ
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:44:34 -0000

Hi Alessandro,
At 01:47 04-04-2014, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>I agree on adding a note.  However, I don't agree with the wording
>proposed in the Errata, reported to the list on February 22, 2012:
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00476.html
>
>That wording was discussed on this list.  Dave and Scott came up with
>a better version on May 8, 2013:
>
>    Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>    defining correct handling of syntactically invalid domain-specs or
>    macro-expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
>    names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
>    that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
>    to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
>    while others return a "permerror" exception.
>
>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03699.html
>    (s/at no-match/as no-match/)

Thanks for suggesting text.  The document currently uses 
"<domain-spec>" and "macro expansion", hence the following editorial changes:

    Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
    or macro expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
    names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
    that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
    to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
    while others return a "permerror" exception.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 


From nobody Mon Apr  7 12:23:29 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D0D1A07DE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  7 Apr 2014 12:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 DlGp5Gl2FgS5 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  7 Apr 2014 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 150D11A07BC for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon,  7 Apr 2014 12:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.147.234]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s37JN4N5021284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1396898596; bh=oguq/lW3Uev7fk5mLhgQAuWOWHEAgUnoXSR0qCDf6MM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=f2S5NPeXYAXJ1snrhNcAkmBbhaK9G/UB3iZ1PoIEoBTSvQUxosWUhcQHTKKoT8vVB IRJT1868uuTcd8HlPf4u36t6AgEaLtlfuqx8BkxExcvfk/uzUx+3buJuZVg2Z7q0P+ gYfdhttbSDNwJ2Q0Em2beWlRXe8U7IRIJfUydSFs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1396898596; i=@elandsys.com; bh=oguq/lW3Uev7fk5mLhgQAuWOWHEAgUnoXSR0qCDf6MM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jdmZ36A+VVwBuZyXv6vR9EZXM9TJ+W75GecqR+XtrlO7YnNFQ6nu5w20oaIlpgHym iAOpeDHVsUSleclFGz85ATaH7yJRaI1htqQqoLPYBC/k3CbjPKbJzoVocA2H/zqfQZ Gb4KGm2nJYgGzIWllekBd77K/OOzqKYAtyTBIjAI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:22:37 -0700
To: spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/qBg7TFvTeHxVNBoEcHyU4QLJVTI
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:23:29 -0000

Hello,
At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>    Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
>    or macro expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
>    names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
>    that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
>    to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
>    while others return a "permerror" exception.

Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the 
above text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th 
I'll ask the RFC Editor to make the change.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 


From nobody Wed Apr  9 11:29:02 2014
Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F0571A0421 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 k5PP5hyDjQYm for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 11:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE3F1A03F4 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id f51so2736383qge.2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=OtGeFPrM7UhNoUeCAmSCfZExgfbQwVjpWs4Y2DcEOH0=; b=i2B4iEqpu8MLxBPr5T7W+bCLEdO7G3a+LJ91DLW9LIiDCM8ndrINPsN0f5Uo587GdJ E3Rh4xeFW+qjOiQX/cWg17N1yqeLlkyghv18huc9xupsEJ/bUQGvyEGRWAORw5iYgL+s BPbSZFY5Su9L+0ziaFycWKiwT5zmy4CfcTX4f6DOWaMLYb41jswnC7gpD4srWjNKmcmr HOcjty+qy5ajZ7nZdOBuFlFkm7W3u/IuiOKJcktLc/q38PnT8G0Kmdg3y1TOzICQdSMx 05kIjXsjEQrD7gMHGPERXurxAQMP9eX4uOqENrq5T4za8EsanRJNszxYhy/1ENITVWF0 9rBw==
X-Received: by 10.140.104.103 with SMTP id z94mr13686524qge.91.1397068134275;  Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s111sm1991016qge.19.2014.04.09.11.28.52 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 11:28:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/536imfkKDSctGPK20yK1fr9Z6ZU
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 18:28:59 -0000

Dear SM,

One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including macros =
is that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A simple =
statement that macros in general are not handled consistently would be =
preferable.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:22 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>>   Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>>   defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
>>   or macro expansion, per <xref target=3D"RFC1035"/>.  Examples =
include
>>   names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
>>   that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
>>   to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
>>   while others return a "permerror" exception.
>=20
> Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the =
above text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th I'll =
ask the RFC Editor to make the change.
>=20
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)=20
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis


From nobody Wed Apr  9 12:02:49 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A581A0456 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.602
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Qh2epA9hKY5T for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF761A044A for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33439D043FA; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397070144; bh=+fW+3VZ5iwsoH1VKahOJThlKsC3VVhL5Wax4PGrjwjM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CmzQO9PhCgTJQdAcD7ooOiTyjtwJKUe/bRyfd0pZIodPfMLJv0t+4LO17eSM0OzTt 26s0HzKW3oY5TFBHXHawQuH8TDsZpSwdN0rL9ta6lIOZdYvYfB3SQwZkQm8+4+WukL B5XdXSuzjFkkDQhU6Su2FmSYr35/8YK0NVkfa8Jw=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F60ED041A9; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:02:23 -0400
Message-ID: <93151730.gBJFgAHBE1@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-19-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/o2Sj6SiZFBzI25p6pptsPUchgMo
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 19:02:43 -0000

It doesn't imply that any more than including macros in the document does.  
We've already had that discussion and are well past it.  This isn't an open 
door to re-litigate things the working group has already discussed.

Scott K

On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:28:54 Douglas Otis wrote:
> Dear SM,
> 
> One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including macros is
> that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A simple statement
> that macros in general are not handled consistently would be preferable.
> 
> Regards,
> Douglas Otis
> 
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:22 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
> >>   Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
> >>   defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
> >>   or macro expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
> >>   names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
> >>   that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
> >>   to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
> >>   while others return a "permerror" exception.
> > 
> > Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the above
> > text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th I'll ask
> > the RFC Editor to make the change.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
> > _______________________________________________
> > spfbis mailing list
> > spfbis@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis


From nobody Wed Apr  9 12:07:56 2014
Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042F31A048D for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 bpLBXlx9lDv6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22a.google.com (mail-qa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2761D1A044D for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id k15so2922976qaq.1 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=u61Kw2VoAt38ehnaBsQzBbzXveVspreOtx4bjS//iH4=; b=yJBjrA9UeeKPhBZw45o18EA2/ROBwu0nUc22ZBCR+DFKo8nGM7PWV8dUuyBf3DVR7U NnuWUA17ANhpwDO28hI/k8mI18uEmxqWy545LvonNTHP4YuTEgwMr36kKFLHI6jwAObi ZCYZhywdeQaipiXilToH8fL7On1p3UehQb5Z3GtJ4YEg8+VwS8NZ6tN8fqMm/NQtqAmG XskVTFEegun0VP3sXjlxE938JCpcbSsoqJAtBgftcWfPj/bDTN1DPer7CruIa4ri0JJp k8JfhSzIx0zGUUW3/PTr0Kthd1Y28jx8C2NZJr/OfdeI44IZZ2BS5gEGJDJWR688tXnT tW1g==
X-Received: by 10.224.37.10 with SMTP id v10mr4713744qad.104.1397070404201; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z96sm2110723qge.10.2014.04.09.12.06.42 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <93151730.gBJFgAHBE1@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:06:46 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A5265196-C27E-4307-BD6A-0CBD06E7DAE8@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <93151730.gBJFgAHBE1@scott-latitude-e6320>
To: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/AdXBbg_v7neruLun9Yr_9MzDc4g
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 19:07:54 -0000

Dear Scott,

Please consider this a matter of not providing deceptive or unhelpful =
information.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

=20
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> wrote:

> It doesn't imply that any more than including macros in the document =
does. =20
> We've already had that discussion and are well past it.  This isn't an =
open=20
> door to re-litigate things the working group has already discussed.
>=20
> Scott K
>=20
> On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:28:54 Douglas Otis wrote:
>> Dear SM,
>>=20
>> One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including =
macros is
>> that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A simple =
statement
>> that macros in general are not handled consistently would be =
preferable.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Douglas Otis
>>=20
>> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:22 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> =
wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>=20
>>> At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>>>>  Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>>>>  defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
>>>>  or macro expansion, per <xref target=3D"RFC1035"/>.  Examples =
include
>>>>  names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
>>>>  that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
>>>>  to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
>>>>  while others return a "permerror" exception.
>>>=20
>>> Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the =
above
>>> text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th I'll =
ask
>>> the RFC Editor to make the change.
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spfbis mailing list
>>> spfbis@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> spfbis mailing list
>> spfbis@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis


From nobody Wed Apr  9 12:09:48 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849EA1A03C2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 by_9-VEGt5-w for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1851A0473 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:09:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DFF956135; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397070539; bh=wNytqz7wYOjQo5zuwK4vzyzezcThSxdfndKN3z/63Pw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=1tOpmTt7Esb0DNPhVn+34BxhWaeUiM6FbANyxf/rIWV+Rz/utCq59xGpD444Wj2CI 5gZZ4aM5pfvCgkKtGzOiNw94AbYlfMAV7FUtj304/nvwgpsDAFqYb1Cu6jpEDyxff5 u+I5PGsbbsaYEhHmEiv5cYmrFDh3HuU6VEfXvQDU=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68B2E956133; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:08:58 -0400
Message-ID: <82194340.OTi5OXJJXC@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-19-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <A5265196-C27E-4307-BD6A-0CBD06E7DAE8@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <93151730.gBJFgAHBE1@scott-latitude-e6320> <A5265196-C27E-4307-BD6A-0CBD06E7DAE8@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/hGHpEdzog31pTLrQKjwZcCZzlpk
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 19:09:45 -0000

It's not.  (now you can reply "It is" and this can go on all day)

You're view on macros is well known and well established.  It's not the one 
that the working group supported.  Within the established consensus of the 
working group, I think the note is reasonable.

Scott K

On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 12:06:46 Douglas Otis wrote:
> Dear Scott,
> 
> Please consider this a matter of not providing deceptive or unhelpful
> information.
> 
> Regards,
> Douglas Otis
> 
> On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > It doesn't imply that any more than including macros in the document does.
> > We've already had that discussion and are well past it.  This isn't an
> > open
> > door to re-litigate things the working group has already discussed.
> > 
> > Scott K
> > 
> > On Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:28:54 Douglas Otis wrote:
> >> Dear SM,
> >> 
> >> One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including macros is
> >> that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A simple
> >> statement
> >> that macros in general are not handled consistently would be preferable.
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Douglas Otis
> >> 
> >> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:22 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>> 
> >>> At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
> >>>>  Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
> >>>>  defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
> >>>>  or macro expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
> >>>>  names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
> >>>>  that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
> >>>>  to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
> >>>>  while others return a "permerror" exception.
> >>> 
> >>> Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the above
> >>> text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th I'll ask
> >>> the RFC Editor to make the change.
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> spfbis mailing list
> >>> spfbis@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spfbis mailing list
> >> spfbis@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > spfbis mailing list
> > spfbis@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis


From nobody Wed Apr  9 12:28:02 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1243A1A0444 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 LLG-zshiFdhM for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBCB1A0416 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 12:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.155.225]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s39JRd2l005969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397071672; bh=rdzjjAzjxBti+T1/inozCIkxb/F0dX6Usg8GoQwUvO4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=WPn61smKzT2EMfcyTqZ0/9fFn6w7FNe+11HnMXjoGdWlS6q2nE4SZwRSu51GmNAvx vBHkSrrWN6AvumqKflPkPksmfyOLX54aQTptRPp36fN67Ld+KIQ2Tn3ReRMWDf8CAv JGIEYBvQBMCKh4HUw4eINz6TjdXGxOhtMIZdiTCk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397071672; i=@elandsys.com; bh=rdzjjAzjxBti+T1/inozCIkxb/F0dX6Usg8GoQwUvO4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MukCN4g9LsJHfMjl/Z3tAFqx5QQEDCrM/TnLIspajJJIPcc9fc0L8kWsQ4P1o7456 ZUqwAtxFBuRqObW+P3R7Mg1kpAplNNjaGzenh+FI9tLljSIzaJiLfRPnBrXNQIxYtb nZVNu6p+rZTTAwk2DItmhP4NsOxrZfLsEWODA+eU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140409121822.0be60fc0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 12:27:12 -0700
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5265196-C27E-4307-BD6A-0CBD06E7DAE8@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <93151730.gBJFgAHBE1@scott-latitude-e6320> <A5265196-C27E-4307-BD6A-0CBD06E7DAE8@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/B1bx1J0KmwbLHjkZcp5pD4qrTUk
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 19:28:00 -0000

Hi Douglas,
At 12:06 09-04-2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
>Please consider this a matter of not providing deceptive or 
>unhelpful information.

In the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04274.html it 
is mentioned that:

   "A simple statement that macros in general are not handled consistently
    would be preferable."

The suggested note has the following:

   "This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
    or macro expansion,"

The two (quoted) text seem similar to me.  The second sentence of the 
suggested note ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04273.html ) 
provides examples.  The last sentence is about what some 
implementations do and what other implementations do.

I did not find anything deceptive in the suggested text.  I may be 
reading the suggested text incorrectly.  I would like other working 
group participants to comment as it would help to figure out how to 
resolve this last issue.

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 


From nobody Wed Apr  9 14:45:01 2014
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A273F1A0290 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 RnauOu9zLYU8 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBCC1A02C8 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 14:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-75-69-155-67.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.69.155.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7CCE8A031; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 21:44:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:44:47 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/6mutTJA8XIhas89c-ZVHNnhy8GQ
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 21:44:56 -0000

Hi Doug,

I think your objection is just shy of completely irrelevant to the
question at hand.  The question at hand is about a note involving
syntactically invalid <domain-spec> and macro expansions.

You are right that, to the extent macros cause problems, they will
cause problems.  But that's not the issue in this text; instead, it's
about cases of syntactic _invalidity_. 

I have no objection to modifying the text this way:

    Note: This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
    (or macro expansion that results in such syntactic invalidity),
    per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.

Would that help?  The WG decided with a pretty strong consensus that
macros were not going to be removed.  Given that they're not going to
be removed, the proposed text is merely to deal with a particular case
involving bad deployments.  You cannot sneak in another objection to
macros in general here: the WG has already decided on that point.  The
question is only whether, _given that_ macros are included, you can
live with the proposed text (or the elaboration above, if you prefer).

Best regards,

Andrew

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:54AM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
> Dear SM,
> 
> One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including macros is that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A simple statement that macros in general are not handled consistently would be preferable.
> 
> Regards,
> Douglas Otis
> 
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:22 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
> >>   Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
> >>   defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
> >>   or macro expansion, per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include
> >>   names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
> >>   that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
> >>   to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
> >>   while others return a "permerror" exception.
> > 
> > Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the above text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th I'll ask the RFC Editor to make the change.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 
> > _______________________________________________
> > spfbis mailing list
> > spfbis@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com


From nobody Wed Apr  9 15:15:04 2014
Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D281A03A6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 1WW5ZOXP3HS8 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE6911A0390 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id j107so886156qga.36 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=lOmZUmpwcb3gTP5S17WOVvf3pMiv5eV6WbN64KlQ/kk=; b=y6o+Hm8yEHrErsZSzGNQ2/uRrIMHHXR4zSkMDc1IgwaBddWrZze5os81K11LmfdcCy Rl3nPSlAkXjaD7fh/Mgx2aLUUS0Y81i93g/I4eP6xG8VqYGnZdtXFB6vemwZT90cEH3C qoXLOJX3xd1QbxizdxE8hW4xqU7SJxJPYqneRsMOHNUPOZGxzK9FX0G55J3YIkhedYZg mmPBVJ8zgGu77+GA5Y34eJfSaTejrbwZcWwiC0adTDbOZSikmWBxgp1L2v/Jcg0GWoWt 9EWFnbVRiIhKrc8Z3ccC0sKRu7HsbNfDV6TlNTCnM9j5TS5VQDw6rLGSB+1aIt5xg0x6 QiqA==
X-Received: by 10.224.65.67 with SMTP id h3mr16126950qai.43.1397081697096; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g64sm2668831qgf.22.2014.04.09.15.14.55 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:14:56 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <261B89E3-3338-4514-84DC-2C503B3F8438@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/H6_Ozee6uFUSkO0V7Z2DavivaC0
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 22:15:02 -0000

On Apr 9, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> =
wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>=20
> I think your objection is just shy of completely irrelevant to the
> question at hand.  The question at hand is about a note involving
> syntactically invalid <domain-spec> and macro expansions.
>=20
> You are right that, to the extent macros cause problems, they will
> cause problems.  But that's not the issue in this text; instead, it's
> about cases of syntactic _invalidity_.=20
>=20
> I have no objection to modifying the text this way:
>=20
>    Note: This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
>    (or macro expansion that results in such syntactic invalidity),
>    per <xref target=3D"RFC1035"/>.
>=20
> Would that help?  The WG decided with a pretty strong consensus that
> macros were not going to be removed.  Given that they're not going to
> be removed, the proposed text is merely to deal with a particular case
> involving bad deployments.  You cannot sneak in another objection to
> macros in general here: the WG has already decided on that point.  The
> question is only whether, _given that_ macros are included, you can
> live with the proposed text (or the elaboration above, if you prefer).
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> Andrew

Dear Andrew,

The intent was not to "sneak" in another objection.  The intent was to =
offer well considered advice.

Inclusion of macros in this concern is likely deceptive.  This advice =
does not represent a meaningful correction to current macro handling.  A =
general statement that attempts to extend a syntax correction could do =
so by simply stating macros are not handled consistently and leave it at =
that.  This would avoid offering any allusion that this errata offers in =
any way a meaningful correction to how macros are currently used.  It =
does not (thankfully).

Regards,
Douglas Otis=20



>=20
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:28:54AM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> Dear SM,
>>=20
>> One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including =
macros is that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A =
simple statement that macros in general are not handled consistently =
would be preferable.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Douglas Otis
>>=20
>> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:22 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hello,
>>> At 09:13 05-04-2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>>>>  Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>>>>  defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
>>>>  or macro expansion, per <xref target=3D"RFC1035"/>.  Examples =
include
>>>>  names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels
>>>>  that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose
>>>>  to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such names,
>>>>  while others return a "permerror" exception.
>>>=20
>>> Scott Kitterman and Andrew (as SPFBIS WG Chair) are okay with the =
above text.  If there aren't any objections by Wednesday, April 9th I'll =
ask the RFC Editor to make the change.
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> spfbis mailing list
>>> spfbis@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> spfbis mailing list
>> spfbis@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>=20
> --=20
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com


From nobody Wed Apr  9 15:31:41 2014
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6771A03AF for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 TOqGoekT5D_X for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF511A03AD for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-75-69-155-67.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.69.155.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B34C48A031; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 22:31:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:31:33 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140409223132.GA524@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <261B89E3-3338-4514-84DC-2C503B3F8438@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <261B89E3-3338-4514-84DC-2C503B3F8438@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/VhGxwknagA2wrU0Rr4kDA6RlU3w
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 22:31:39 -0000

Doug,

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
> The intent was to offer well considered advice.

You neatly avoided responding to my proposed text alteration, or
suggesting different text.  Do you just want to leave macros out of
the text at all?  Can you please either suggest altered text, or say
that you object to the inclusion absolutely?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com


From nobody Wed Apr  9 15:48:18 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573691A03D7 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 K-AALNVfYOQS for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF4E1A03BB for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2BDD0446E; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 18:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397083693; bh=4lF8XEO0UGfsh4J64hseAm8goHO28FdZ8AC6ATa8EX4=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=O4ib6yEP/Ol29ZxyTFzB5pWn5Id+VAncCh4OsphV4iGknYAS4FVrlWWIe8SdKmbUb 6p0miKuuaRihPJj+sHx1wSRVLYPTj/CNLxnotUpjJ1wXvw2qQx/IKr8q5lcN59hOiv jNN1VZPHuDb2LtNplImEm9wLW9V96u8JcxYVUgaI=
Received: from [10.175.59.53] (55.sub-70-192-220.myvzw.com [70.192.220.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CEEBD04469; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 18:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:48:11 -0400
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <9ebb551a-53d7-4139-9f7b-d88afd6b14b7@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/hdsXJekr-1pHTfUVEcuo4hSYOLQ
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of	draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 22:48:16 -0000

I think the proposed change makes the note substantially less useful. The original text resolves a specific ambiguity with specifics about where the ambiguity lies.  This proposed change abstracts away the useful information for people that aren't DNS experts. 

Scott K


From nobody Wed Apr  9 15:50:47 2014
Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073D71A0479 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4oYXnmtaCJ-O for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EDA1A0478 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x13so3577187qcv.15 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wywFy0LimhfqrNwvCQaeexvRuKOYI1aWXK0hucbIxOw=; b=sJDvtBeBgk5JucNxkzSWC7h7GAkQC70iEzeYxI85SK/lsJslZsHH3VEkSj0ymzpXdC Hwz8q10eVd3LLtIKgsIcOjTjmBdEoi2wikhMrmFFw4r4QMxueXw62jGHkI5gERxDGn3U sLMAniL14Ye1zKsskdYNCQvag/7RXIGMdMo5VK90tDwSCGzEwb0rZiDm9Q/BpfcX3ct5 iMJXipeMYjATV1HJCzwkalCheMYryQWY/3gD59WQlDUVI4mX74uaqtRqf6HH50GnqfhY jias5JWvbrQK633ZqOfs5y1Qh5GkVRNkS3kWRKjt4MaQAmAChk2t3mQBTl4j7LZqKn8D LdHQ==
X-Received: by 10.229.179.65 with SMTP id bp1mr16420480qcb.11.1397083843311; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w35sm2781504qgw.4.2014.04.09.15.50.41 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140409223132.GA524@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:50:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E6EC1D9D-72F8-41DB-8E6B-450142168A3B@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <261B89E3-3338-4514-84DC-2C503B3F8438@gmail.com> <20140409223132.GA524@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/faf43a2_VZ2BQOoAcsmLNR7oIlI
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 22:50:46 -0000

Dear Andrew,

Your modified text missed the concern.

Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for =
defining correct handling of syntactically invalid <domain-spec> per =
<xref target=3D"RFC1035"/>.  Syntax related examples include names with =
empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels that are longer =
than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose to treat such errors as =
no-match and therefore ignore such names, while others return a =
"permerror" exception.  Macro expansion might be handled in a similar =
fashion irrespective of any related syntax issues.

Regards,
Douglas Otis


On Apr 9, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> =
wrote:

> Doug,
>=20
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> The intent was to offer well considered advice.
>=20
> You neatly avoided responding to my proposed text alteration, or
> suggesting different text.  Do you just want to leave macros out of
> the text at all?  Can you please either suggest altered text, or say
> that you object to the inclusion absolutely?
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> A
>=20
> --=20
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com


From nobody Wed Apr  9 15:52:11 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23E11A048A for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 mbk4xw75rvT7 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:52:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AB11A0479 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34464D04479; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397083924; bh=yGwAMnC5VZSDdstKJ1wy6gY95vgF3wqMEEf5greMWWA=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=0Jc7rfw5MMJ46iwgmdrA+EZevFBO2R0YPVQOQthtnlgITWk4FAQ9xhL+CjJVxMXcy Fw3ok998YyFxImUZd2pal0hN5M4dwA4VbDkH4kRyA7m2QUaH7TE6QGr+hkHxEL36OV s3WRETjz8Js4L0mTx3P6hIXqaDmTjBXdMaADc5jc=
Received: from [10.175.59.53] (55.sub-70-192-220.myvzw.com [70.192.220.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C5D4D04477; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 18:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <9ebb551a-53d7-4139-9f7b-d88afd6b14b7@email.android.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <9ebb551a-53d7-4139-9f7b-d88afd6b14b7@email.android.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:52:02 -0400
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <53534feb-367a-4fd6-b4de-1802662abdb3@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/voO702XWsCj99gbuU_lYvPTIS4U
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8	of	draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 22:52:07 -0000

On April 9, 2014 6:48:11 PM EDT, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> wrote:
>I think the proposed change makes the note substantially less useful.
>The original text resolves a specific ambiguity with specifics about
>where the ambiguity lies.  This proposed change abstracts away the
>useful information for people that aren't DNS experts. 
>
>Scott K
>
>_______________________________________________
>spfbis mailing list
>spfbis@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis

Sorry. That was meant to be a reply to Andrew's proposed change.

Scott K


From nobody Wed Apr  9 15:55:52 2014
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CB91A0492 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 d2gZJLXa_8jH for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49951A03D7 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 15:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (c-75-69-155-67.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [75.69.155.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9EC38A031; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 22:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 18:55:46 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Message-ID: <20140409225546.GC524@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <9ebb551a-53d7-4139-9f7b-d88afd6b14b7@email.android.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9ebb551a-53d7-4139-9f7b-d88afd6b14b7@email.android.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/UEQOYQ_2wrKxe0aGAf0oJVubILg
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 22:55:52 -0000

Ok, thanks.

What about Doug's latest?  

I think the _point_ is that, if a <domain-spec> is syntactically
invalid, then it's undefined what happens and we know that, right?
And this is true even if the <domain-spec> results from macro
processing, correct?

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com


From nobody Wed Apr  9 16:00:14 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE9B71A03D3 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 1o2yGOLi7c9a for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2795F1A03D7 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72BB2D043D6; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 19:00:09 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397084409; bh=jzMH/dSHvGOnfIZ20WsfgXsmiZk+vZ+rVhPVxuYwDck=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=UrZmJQoNCtA8YYgpRDNWcC8SuJrdvRAJHhmYLnWuwxucipPtnZVGP4/K2UrZE4bYt j69VjVxHXe679W5eGCbLZ4fBQIHGRUt72qYE+7eJRdR67u56l0Hq9MjTHWBzrObAau Z3dVh/Pvkdg4nIUnW5df4f9PE6TAX7I/xEiq6bhg=
Received: from [10.175.59.53] (55.sub-70-192-220.myvzw.com [70.192.220.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F02F4D04035; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 19:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <E6EC1D9D-72F8-41DB-8E6B-450142168A3B@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <261B89E3-3338-4514-84DC-2C503B3F8438@gmail.com> <20140409223132.GA524@mx1.yitter.info> <E6EC1D9D-72F8-41DB-8E6B-450142168A3B@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:00:07 -0400
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <31992340-8dab-4f53-87ee-e46b3bec8888@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/WDTgQbUJYRTf2aUakXcEGcBZJ1w
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of	draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 23:00:12 -0000

On April 9, 2014 6:50:42 PM EDT, Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear Andrew,
>
>Your modified text missed the concern.
>
>Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>defining correct handling of syntactically invalid <domain-spec> per
><xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Syntax related examples include names with
>empty labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels that are longer
>than 63 characters.  Some implementations choose to treat such errors
>as no-match and therefore ignore such names, while others return a
>"permerror" exception.  Macro expansion might be handled in a similar
>fashion irrespective of any related syntax issues.
>
>Regards,
>Douglas Otis
>
>
>On Apr 9, 2014, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Doug,
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 03:14:56PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
>>> The intent was to offer well considered advice.
>> 
>> You neatly avoided responding to my proposed text alteration, or
>> suggesting different text.  Do you just want to leave macros out of
>> the text at all?  Can you please either suggest altered text, or say
>> that you object to the inclusion absolutely?
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>spfbis mailing list
>spfbis@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis

Absolutely not. 

The note is about resolving an ambiguity in the spec.  Not a generic warning that macros suck.

Deliberately or not your responses are orthogonal to the question at hand.

Scott K


From nobody Wed Apr  9 16:12:24 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C739E1A02DE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9HSM4xUfpezA for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3A41A02A2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 16:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0082E956140; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 19:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397085137; bh=Q0c9QC4gyiRAFUGRN3LSpbOHdsJ1cEvLn6rVYG1tj7k=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=wuoJHXSy+EW++fxqZp3p+ETYwQehfzCFpleNlboWtz5st+dSE2lXx7LV479KVmVaL 3LmWbNaOvCrUp1EeYjSHFIxTpF9FHFg0EW/WRrbjKBWbhFNz3kiiwIMKcRyixFRh3x akt9dCysAcbDKdIgoOh4fLg9cMNdzPCl9jNtEZSA=
Received: from [10.175.59.53] (55.sub-70-192-220.myvzw.com [70.192.220.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73D92D043C7; Wed,  9 Apr 2014 19:12:16 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <20140409225546.GC524@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <9ebb551a-53d7-4139-9f7b-d88afd6b14b7@email.android.com> <20140409225546.GC524@mx1.yitter.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 19:12:06 -0400
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <aa9f60b2-3517-4de3-b26a-bc60200ae978@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/2MciL6Ih-v3gO1XblHVxK9DbnX4
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of	draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 09 Apr 2014 23:12:22 -0000

On April 9, 2014 6:55:46 PM EDT, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>Ok, thanks.
>
>What about Doug's latest?  

Replied separately. 

>I think the _point_ is that, if a <domain-spec> is syntactically
>invalid, then it's undefined what happens and we know that, right?
>And this is true even if the <domain-spec> results from macro
>processing, correct?
>
>A

Yes.   The most likely scenario for that is a macro expanding to nothing resulting in consecutive dots or an empty domain-spec.  That's why I like the note in it's longer form.

Scott K

Scott K



From nobody Fri Apr 11 12:44:17 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199051A0337 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 afMJo6YkEgCm for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE62B1A076B for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.140.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3BJhas9018226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397245428; bh=hW5r8LTHWhhaskBfo9QNJqY7/QNKDHOr2IXilf082/8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=PUInTwHr/OXkgLPyuAK/AwKwIQYW1TKQGFe5w4Y9wx35CF3byZQZ1zk3WKxV/vrmv PqMqcbT68q/HOIwhXrGLP3oQpwcd53ryCP/4sfGXxEcbc1CttxarGjkVFAWsrlVVGk ogf1hGDuhlSnfoLn1Bil1Se5gVT7IacWd09zOQR4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397245428; i=@elandsys.com; bh=hW5r8LTHWhhaskBfo9QNJqY7/QNKDHOr2IXilf082/8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VjYInBlZc4TV2PEjSJrDuZjmi526UHTg3GzS2uZ4fusA+Sgaafy7keqs6ABLMRcyK ukfga787rbDSkS0UcHuJea/AoNkPoRL/9FVFj0GTEDAiVjni/fUZSdDgKgBjr2vRjQ NvXfYwpq2ONLHWqW+k67LblBA+M3xGdIaOtUx3TM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140411113958.0c2a5fb0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:41:14 -0700
To: spfbis@ietf.org, Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140410010536.GP524@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <20140409214447.GV524@mx1.yitter.info> <261B89E3-3338-4514-84DC-2C503B3F8438@gmail.com> <20140409223132.GA524@mx1.yitter.info> <E6EC1D9D-72F8-41DB-8E6B-450142168A3B@gmail.com> <31992340-8dab-4f53-87ee-e46b3bec8888@email.android.com> <20140410010536.GP524@mx1.yitter.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/usbLGW7YO2Rf3VDpA3KUdjhsPDI
Cc: spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Apr 2014 19:44:16 -0000

Hello,

I'll try to summarize the discussion about the note in Section 4.8 of 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.

Andrew Sillivan asked whether "the _point_ is that, if a 
<domain-spec> is syntactically
invalid, then it's undefined what happens and we know that, right? 
And this is true even if the <domain-spec> results from macro 
processing, correct?" [1] and Scott Kitterman agreed to that [2].  He 
also mentioned that "the most likely scenario for that is a macro 
expanding to nothing resulting in consecutive dots or an empty domain-spec".

Douglas Otis suggested the following additional text to address his 
concern [3]:

   "Macro expansion might be handled in a similar fashion irrespective of any
    related syntax issues."

Scott Kitterman read the above text as "a generic warning that macros 
suck" [4].  As a reminder the objection from Douglas Otis was [5]:

   "the implication by including macros is that they are actually supported and
    not often ignored."

I'll comment as from here.  How about:

   "Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>,
    per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include names with empty
    labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels that are longer than
    63 characters.  Some implementations choose to treat such errors as
    no-match and therefore ignore such names, while others return a
    "permerror" exception."

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04285.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04287.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04283.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04286.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04274.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04272.html


From nobody Fri Apr 11 16:16:54 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A751A02B6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 4J6BLI2U_Dl2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABD21A0290 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA7D95609B; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397258206; bh=sJ1GkKuHSHueJzP+zBzSp8br7qSzlLlDVVkAEXfuLjU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Vlte6OwkBPBHvdkkpvYC6hdeTsUoTKjwDjftMCzoKISvijUpZklxxwy4EHARCg/g6 GL07OfZmIvrm4lHvJbGB6KAwhTvRfGxiqRDAlviJ+WiVdnF+z/49JIjVRv5mPtdZ0q 44OmHLbGT+ORlI4q8hX06w5qB59oj/8tmRBBg6iE=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E3A7956097; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:16:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 19:16:41 -0400
Message-ID: <698635236.G2BPOGpkLF@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-19-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140411113958.0c2a5fb0@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <20140410010536.GP524@mx1.yitter.info> <6.2.5.6.2.20140411113958.0c2a5fb0@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/Ndcns9YoyZaoMgj3j8bCoQR7OpQ
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Apr 2014 23:16:52 -0000

On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:41:14 S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'll try to summarize the discussion about the note in Section 4.8 of
> draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.
> 
> Andrew Sillivan asked whether "the _point_ is that, if a
> <domain-spec> is syntactically
> invalid, then it's undefined what happens and we know that, right?
> And this is true even if the <domain-spec> results from macro
> processing, correct?" [1] and Scott Kitterman agreed to that [2].  He
> also mentioned that "the most likely scenario for that is a macro
> expanding to nothing resulting in consecutive dots or an empty domain-spec".
> 
> Douglas Otis suggested the following additional text to address his
> concern [3]:
> 
>    "Macro expansion might be handled in a similar fashion irrespective of
> any related syntax issues."
> 
> Scott Kitterman read the above text as "a generic warning that macros
> suck" [4].  As a reminder the objection from Douglas Otis was [5]:
> 
>    "the implication by including macros is that they are actually supported
> and not often ignored."
> 
> I'll comment as from here.  How about:
> 
>    "Note:  This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>     defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>,
>     per <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Examples include names with empty
>     labels, such as "foo..example.com", and labels that are longer than
>     63 characters.  Some implementations choose to treat such errors as
>     no-match and therefore ignore such names, while others return a
>     "permerror" exception."
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
> 
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04285.html
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04287.html
> 3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04283.html
> 4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04286.html
> 5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04274.html
> 6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04272.html

Works for me.

Scott K


From nobody Fri Apr 11 16:41:42 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372C61A03CE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 aUqNAItnlKYP for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396FF1A02B6 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.140.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3BNfIQ7002902 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397259691; bh=PyNE18ovSBJpJLMeSpCmeda4MRuIhpQa4NKhEsyoJkI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=eyUQ/Xt3PZYekmYCcbcsNuSA+1iuDjhfu6F1PPnmHiPKkZlnNowEGfqZW/a2IEmqq efZbo8T72CHidkl38dMhicZhz0DqI2xsu81qh7HgGKnCxF8Kzv08fM1XZhMH+lE0p0 +Kwt2EOyscWj7b1cmf5m05DhGYAH/hUmRpg6d1MI=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397259691; i=@elandsys.com; bh=PyNE18ovSBJpJLMeSpCmeda4MRuIhpQa4NKhEsyoJkI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=QH+Xibsa1o6MY/smhzCFdb+zC5L62Fqr+b6Il5T1TCqdz1c6z3CP8QB+Yb5jk6wi+ k0wj2E1E3ic4wyMuCSETUodW/D9QbUiF6zboTBVvse1yKqpSj8rF2NB8IUd0NyxWxW L7+W1VSeMDzQ+SPgM28nw2qj5x34OdP8PBeDWnKo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:40:03 -0700
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/M9PYRR0v79VY2zT1xTSba79bmPE
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Apr 2014 23:41:41 -0000

Hi Douglas,
At 11:28 09-04-2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
>One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including 
>macros is that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A 
>simple statement that macros in general are not handled consistently 
>would be preferable.

I posted a rough summary of the discussion at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04288.html and 
suggested some text for the note.  Could you please review that 
message and the suggested text to see whether it addresses the above 
objection?  It would help if I could get a response by Monday 14th April.

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 


From nobody Sat Apr 12 23:18:21 2014
Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08B41A026F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 pi4KJKvbS2DT for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0A21A0271 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id uo5so7066552pbc.10 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=AbMhaJeDzW1l8ThtB4LO950J7qJzQR7FyImnY1fy6so=; b=oI6B5L5stcLO0lPDsluXRuK3HQAAJKdfYpsHbkJyM1zna0MV6ThVs67i/QJhzpL4XY ZtKbjwd+pS+hgzAjID4U/oMvxzJP5nyPzBCd656h+QHKm7Ghs4jRQ62QTJ73BlIwtMu6 +hk6xuTkIRt9HfAd0ibYXRvj3B4a3PofQn6sn6EfongSSzzz9sSIwmPVefdslu968X58 K+XVj/5bzlDzVOJB1Y9mcYwWCpSjaY3wnGpVYcPCKprokuRPg0/jT9bC1rMKkit0iWyv 1jjYPAgNDXdmDKSaZCIJsuC1a25cL3yvGjkUP9fur4VnDGGEEzNrgkFHPvNGjCZqwaDh WaSQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.230.193 with SMTP id ta1mr15457282pac.29.1397369892627; Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:76c0:27:7458:1b67:99a2:976f? ([2601:9:76c0:27:7458:1b67:99a2:976f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id iq10sm25791560pbc.14.2014.04.12.23.18.10 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:18:10 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9184C4E9-A718-4BB4-8A27-DFACD6EB7C3F@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/WUZmdnR50aNrN2Abxezft6qI4ig
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 06:18:19 -0000

Dear SM,

Your wording is an improvement.

Regards,
Douglas Otis


On Apr 11, 2014, at 4:40 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Douglas,
> At 11:28 09-04-2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> One objection to such inclusion is the implication by including =
macros is that they are actually supported and not often ignored.  A =
simple statement that macros in general are not handled consistently =
would be preferable.
>=20
> I posted a rough summary of the discussion at =
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04288.html and =
suggested some text for the note.  Could you please review that message =
and the suggested text to see whether it addresses the above objection?  =
It would help if I could get a response by Monday 14th April.
>=20
> Thanks,
> S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)=20


From nobody Thu Apr 17 11:18:48 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD691A0236 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.163
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 nPH2Q7QlMkxQ for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CC41A022F for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.145.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3HIIFqf013647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397758708; bh=yHw6y+L2MhRjifFmPkEvB2XaX6GPMIeAbwcYtYjeHAk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Vq9sauDvFKd0OjPmyJDY9kNjA4VcMorEa8f99stWH56LreVLRhUjQ6RlvnbG315O3 gZDPDTK3MsR2M9hf/GxSoZRdESIYgAKNPbnReT12s029jKZdwMJx0iIofcHxfXMYsx Vkbp3uaNDT7kp6Ree6cOOuZNvEQO0Vsn/6d7N+ZE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397758708; i=@elandsys.com; bh=yHw6y+L2MhRjifFmPkEvB2XaX6GPMIeAbwcYtYjeHAk=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=bJsfytn8PwoX+WMlxSqMQby7B7SbLccnij2ZRgT0imwYnL8/k0GxrpXtkLT2Xc4/D JaFJzgnYHkAT8BQ+tWZc0+y3xRM8jj2FyC6DmoKJz0NJDnMnnPIK7dpGXcq4hmbC3D EZDy/lavfjQh6r5zP44i47YylGiH8BcQW201cj8U=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140417110449.0b9dbf18@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:15:59 -0700
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <9184C4E9-A718-4BB4-8A27-DFACD6EB7C3F@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com> <9184C4E9-A718-4BB4-8A27-DFACD6EB7C3F@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/3Vt-TRuj0OYjYhyU3v8HcXsAhsY
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 17 Apr 2014 18:18:47 -0000

Hi Douglas,
At 23:18 12-04-2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
>Your wording is an improvement.

Thanks for the reply.  I apologize for being slow with the follow-up.

I discussed the suggested note with Andrew (as WG Chair) and we 
concluded that the following text fits better with the rest of the 
text in Section 4.8:

   "Note: This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
    (which might be the result of macro expansion), per <xref 
target="RFC1035"/>.
    Examples include names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com",
    and labels that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations
    choose to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such
    names, while others return a "permerror" exception."

Given the existence of macros, do you object here to warning about 
their side effects?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)  


From nobody Fri Apr 18 09:11:56 2014
Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCA61A0454 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9,  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 f-aqwGFRU33F for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E321A0228 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so1590149pbb.5 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;  h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=U96tkQcbnf3xzLVTzeL1N2D6v1HB6ahOO85nRRU7I1E=; b=rsZYNUwe3Kl17xrmVxAmGc2kAGxITzlBs0Dsk6U31LhNo3QAycQXhytGEK5s3c//6z sVkFqRqB/VbYcfVb3iP/mVIqoZanswS+mBAMxYUOPDRLNX9CHkOB0EPKo/2wXFuiPHFE xJOVoo170tj+WK/LQWsgYwm15H0btdc/SwJuKdOgwZPqsEfSnJquaGqkvw47Vdzkk5aU y646CX/mhSQ+csxgSY1y2T7SM1m4OeykJZHBdAU9V7IepnTM/oDaopgrtbpS7wZPIg9O 3pwH4qveUzhfAu5GdvHjxTP/r/WLklDyWDbQR92nliuQb4zT/KTwS0ux2sx35YxwddI7 Xzrw==
X-Received: by 10.68.202.194 with SMTP id kk2mr2959735pbc.156.1397837506535; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp150.priv.bungi.com (c-24-4-159-60.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.4.159.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kl1sm60697327pbd.73.2014.04.18.09.11.44 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140417110449.0b9dbf18@elandnews.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:11:44 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F929CA3-06ED-443B-B2F6-293618E9DCC8@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com> <9184C4E9-A718-4BB4-8A27-DFACD6EB7C3F@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140417110449.0b9dbf18@elandnews.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/u9tn6fNliEm27_0adBoavoVB4Ss
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Apr 2014 16:11:55 -0000

On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:15 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:

> Hi Douglas,
> At 23:18 12-04-2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> Your wording is an improvement.
>=20
> Thanks for the reply.  I apologize for being slow with the follow-up.
>=20
> I discussed the suggested note with Andrew (as WG Chair) and we =
concluded that the following text fits better with the rest of the text =
in Section 4.8:
>=20
>  "Note: This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
>   defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
>   (which might be the result of macro expansion), per <xref =
target=3D"RFC1035"/>.
>   Examples include names with empty labels, such as =
"foo..example.com",
>   and labels that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations
>   choose to treat such errors as no-match and therefore ignore such
>   names, while others return a "permerror" exception."
>=20
> Given the existence of macros, do you object here to warning about =
their side effects?

Dear SM,

I doubt we'll ever reach a point where this group accepts many don't =
expand SPF macros and this part of the protocol is seriously broken and =
seldom used (a good thing).   You have turned that around a bit.  =
Nevertheless this wording is still an improvement.  Thank you.

Regards,
Douglas Otis


From nobody Fri Apr 18 09:36:13 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E57681A03C6 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 K8S4pAF5e9qy for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E646D1A03D5 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.151.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3IGZeUU000626 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397838953; bh=U73I6nwlFzprMOhEtVgucvFbwNJ0zxcFAD/GfOWu4Us=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ppa2xkO0Zaw5xAskkqLHYjETIq3QmvDoI7hYcos3OQ5Y9ttxscfvysyFhQNkMRpZu edRP0VZI9PHEt9XSaQTzjw2/KZO/HkxIzUExG4JnCcMti+SDC3la/1jTzdggwYS/xJ IP+1qaurP4MtLZfyV15vnwZZLtoMwX0EbJe5LOiM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397838953; i=@elandsys.com; bh=U73I6nwlFzprMOhEtVgucvFbwNJ0zxcFAD/GfOWu4Us=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=sR6Ak4jemfTibHVFA+4CdBAKywJYdzKN6NA9VH7v5U+KnGyySNwJRIHedYjTMTkHJ Sita5YHhO6JXzrFAjhXq/QnUiE8GK3yhunpaGrTHyPgo/CPlvcFxL60Rk83DuptKPi S9zO2et9j9l1E33oULIJnLV/vHWD0wjL8syjkxck=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140418092622.0b95b360@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:33:11 -0700
To: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <9F929CA3-06ED-443B-B2F6-293618E9DCC8@gmail.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com> <9184C4E9-A718-4BB4-8A27-DFACD6EB7C3F@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140417110449.0b9dbf18@elandnews.com> <9F929CA3-06ED-443B-B2F6-293618E9DCC8@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/LnUQp1KVg-94leaG6_0Q6wKwHIs
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, spfbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 18 Apr 2014 16:36:13 -0000

Hi Douglas,
At 09:11 18-04-2014, Douglas Otis wrote:
>I doubt we'll ever reach a point where this group accepts many don't 
>expand SPF macros and this part of the protocol is seriously broken 
>and seldom used (a good thing).   You have turned that around a 
>bit.  Nevertheless this wording is still an improvement.  Thank you.

Thanks for understanding the various opinions.  I'll consider the 
objection at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04274.html as 
addressed.  I'll ask the RFC Editor to add the note to Section 4.8 of 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)  


From nobody Sat Apr 19 16:26:48 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55BD1A0099 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.373
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 T2jiiFx-qONc for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CA91A008A for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.140.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3JNQOfJ026736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397949996; bh=AIbX0VWxYH9VksOf3goIvvm94Bw+ViFefQyS2aAA2UM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=xe3WLmGu18qra4TnhNIa21T3Ed25b/qNPwpPJaa0Hh0IIwrqOeMTbNjvnUgXiZNz7 IUOU+MdzsiTQYXxjfzBVspXDVHPspZGOj5JLWEICKRPVzVrH7HWjy1Re4d4hD2+pw7 y0NawAkO7gm64qjdUioklQ0tDrl7aYA3Pqdy9/Ys=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397949996; i=@elandsys.com; bh=AIbX0VWxYH9VksOf3goIvvm94Bw+ViFefQyS2aAA2UM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=QUVCF4bshk7RaxVre9fj0QdkXhTwvnLdekBpaoKWofWQhtcgEdXaOEAS8lkkw5CA0 28ejEIZMscXP81AO0P4PNOWEsLnequJswplRitlxzPLjk8eKDBFdin/19fHp7KL4bc O2eCpd3/E7RJF+UGAn04n866LbSvYUIMZk+Azcak=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140419161843.0c3bea10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:22:36 -0700
To: spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140418092622.0b95b360@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140403141220.0d938f28@elandnews.com> <533E71AD.3070303@tana.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20140405085005.0d016970@resistor.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140407121608.0ce967a0@resistor.net> <33DF0940-C39D-44CA-9540-303F4FEDD4EE@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140411163036.0c1a3190@elandnews.com> <9184C4E9-A718-4BB4-8A27-DFACD6EB7C3F@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140417110449.0b9dbf18@elandnews.com> <9F929CA3-06ED-443B-B2F6-293618E9DCC8@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140418092622.0b95b360@elandnews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/6Sr5x_ftlPxc-GQ4ZScb35abKCs
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Adding a note in Section 4.8 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 23:26:46 -0000

Hello,

There was a mistake in the suggested text for the note.  The correct text is:

    Note: This document and its predecessors make no provisions for
    defining correct handling of a syntactically invalid <domain-spec>
    (which might be the result of macro expansion), per [RFC1035].
    Examples include names with empty labels, such as "foo..example.com",
    and labels that are longer than 63 characters.  Some implementations
    choose to treat such errors as not-match and therefore ignore such
    names, while others return a "permerror" exception.

The change is "not-match" in the last sentence.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)


From nobody Fri Apr 25 15:03:16 2014
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76FD1A06C3; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.174
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 81t4DUru0R26; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6769E1A0670; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 83AB9180203; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20140425220206.83AB9180203@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/zjY9N_AUN1u-jdqLKRnyyyiq9Z4
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [spfbis] RFC 7208 on Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 22:03:10 -0000

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 7208

        Title:      Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for 
                    Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, 
                    Version 1 
        Author:     S. Kitterman
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       April 2014
        Mailbox:    scott@kitterman.com
        Pages:      64
        Characters: 144189
        Obsoletes:  RFC 4408

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7208.txt

Email on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways.  In
particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending
host can use as the "MAIL FROM" of a message or the domain given on
the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands.  This document describes version 1 of
the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby ADministrative
Management Domains (ADMDs) can explicitly authorize the hosts that
are allowed to use their domain names, and a receiving host can check
such authorization.

This document obsoletes RFC 4408.

This document is a product of the SPF Update Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


From nobody Fri Apr 25 15:17:44 2014
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DBF1A06CE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.141
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=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 xY69GhnQjbw9 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:17:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9BC21A03F2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.92.204.40] (mobile-198-228-192-135.mycingular.net [198.228.192.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC0688A031 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:17:31 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:17:28 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <55e2ca30-6022-42cd-8bab-0631f2a0c89c.maildroid@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20140425220206.83AB9180203@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20140425220206.83AB9180203@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/ZXt0kEPP39lnV79DuZ2gIj8DqnM
Subject: Re: [spfbis] RFC 7208 on Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 22:17:40 -0000

Dear colleagues,

Thanks for your hard work to get this done and published, and thanks to Scott for his service as the wg's editor on this document.  I also want to thank SM for his work as chair and as the document shepherd.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums. 

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, drafts-update-ref@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Sent: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:03
Subject: [spfbis] RFC 7208 on Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 7208

        Title:      Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for 
                    Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, 
                    Version 1 
        Author:     S. Kitterman
        Status:     Standards Track
        Stream:     IETF
        Date:       April 2014
        Mailbox:    scott@kitterman.com
        Pages:      64
        Characters: 144189
        Obsoletes:  RFC 4408

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7208.txt

Email on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways.  In
particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending
host can use as the "MAIL FROM" of a message or the domain given on
the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands.  This document describes version 1 of
the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby ADministrative
Management Domains (ADMDs) can explicitly authorize the hosts that
are allowed to use their domain names, and a receiving host can check
such authorization.

This document obsoletes RFC 4408.

This document is a product of the SPF Update Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and
status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC

_______________________________________________
spfbis mailing list
spfbis@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis


From nobody Fri Apr 25 15:45:22 2014
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0061A068E for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 C5kONdZzdbbu for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BD81A0673 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.149.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3PMitWp029895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1398465907; bh=OZm7yUNM9p6zQYSiWAHDAu8bSp0P/Me5jBBBZmqp/tA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=hRRt331eV4EI30hw6fd/+UJV+SzMf2qw3qkZE6k5SCfoHfe4UMxt3VRoTJDFRzjZz 86pXAUgAf9U5LKumA5/dtUiA0e15ctiGUgNzG0Y5+oofwxBgshTos4wq0UCEeN5Edm ly61FF6zqASoUm8SMMvnfTfJ3bJDjI3m+Ah32JhM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1398465907; i=@elandsys.com; bh=OZm7yUNM9p6zQYSiWAHDAu8bSp0P/Me5jBBBZmqp/tA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=3kNI8y3+xrSrAxncDxAwvGJLfY3gykAONUozQWGTv/pIs9D8BwFbyQ2w+MXQq9EsQ xy3S5pmcb6DcV/wArvzjZSEqMMMc3H2GsiJxjc5offL1GEss94/i8SCEvIMpURfgaz VbD4d0yzktddC9gzoMVEMoBMB5Sw62oQsz4aAoiE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140425153459.08947ff8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:43:33 -0700
To: spfbis@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <55e2ca30-6022-42cd-8bab-0631f2a0c89c.maildroid@localhost>
References: <20140425220206.83AB9180203@rfc-editor.org> <55e2ca30-6022-42cd-8bab-0631f2a0c89c.maildroid@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/PVo9QZb8xW6L3V0XWbPId7xN6z4
Cc: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] RFC 7208 on Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 22:45:21 -0000

Hello,
At 15:17 25-04-2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Thanks for your hard work to get this done and published, and thanks 
>to Scott for his service as the wg's editor on this document.  I 
>also want to thank SM for his work as chair and as the document shepherd.

I would like to thank to Scott and the SPFBIS working group for this 
work.  I'll also thank Andrew for his work as chair. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 


From nobody Fri Apr 25 16:01:01 2014
Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA5D01A068E for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 BSe0PVj-ai90 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9901A0415 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E59CD04612; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1398466850; bh=SY6fQ66ZrAM6zuDWsGAzSCcQQTkdgwXAnm9849Vmkec=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=lihvQnIS1tsbo+wJAEb5LouylRG+SYZ7YN8C+N+PFswYW9v/ZUZ5qpOOhLWy0PN5D xQvypv7v2Rlxemk/wxf1MF03Ayy3uwCrBm8SoIEY0lA7vw+2RQ1j5kWsIBYGAFH0FX 4nqwHUEUUsKeB1n4kC7X6Tq+MbbUkb4bWkjzObR4=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (unknown [184.169.25.96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C80AD0413B; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:00:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:00:29 -0400
Message-ID: <1610485.KOB1HveO1I@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.13.0-24-generic; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/Jh8qNmMVS0cAVsC2o2otPxzs17k
Subject: [spfbis] RFC 7208 Test Suite
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 23:01:00 -0000

As was mentioned a couple of times during the 4408bis work, there is a YAML 
based test suite for RFC 4408 that I've taken an initial stab at updating for 
RFC 7208.  It would be nice if anyone has time, interest, etc if other's could 
review the first cut at updating it.

The test suite is described here:

http://www.openspf.org/Test_Suite

The latest RFC 4408 tests are at:

www.openspf.org/svn/project/test-suite/rfc4408-tests.yml

My initial stab at an update is here:

www.openspf.org/svn/project/test-suite/rfc7208-tests.yml

The changes are described at a high level at:

http://www.openspf.org/svn/project/test-suite/rfc7208-tests.CHANGES

I'm interested in both a review of the changes for RFC 7208 and suggestions 
for new tests.

Thanks to everyone who participated in SPFbis for helping get RFC 7208 done,

Scott K


From nobody Fri Apr 25 16:07:47 2014
Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DD01A0673 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.573
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QyiSfz5FFJMe for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE0B1A0415 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1398467255; x=1430003255; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=6yYHAVQqR8AS1ry+peL5a+q7/N5NiHapDQ6rAnsrgT8=; b=DJjWjOLHqVGhUZPOHq1iGFFX7J+dHCryeK3qskvHbesb7IBFEZWfar1T XnoZm8TBRVuyaxMbiQiVFagWR7nZnAsOnr8zW8PkMBLY/1KuOpjvNQZpO K2QfMuXhTCyuA9iUAJHSf1vn5yaxZy4bMsl1bbRAZlECrPLTg8GFQiqZ0 o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7419"; a="122370656"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2014 16:07:35 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,929,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="655430765"
Received: from nasanexhc09.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.8]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 25 Apr 2014 16:07:35 -0700
Received: from nasanexhc05.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) by nasanexhc09.na.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:07:34 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.2) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:07:34 -0700
Message-ID: <535AEAB4.5030903@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:07:32 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <spfbis@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/zWRd7beX7cyiPeCYzhpzpKSGY-0
Subject: [spfbis] Working Group shutdown imminent
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 23:07:44 -0000

Thanks to everyone for their hard work, especially chairs and document 
editors.

I will be marking the charter items as done (if the chairs haven't 
gotten to them already) and having the secretariat do the WG shutdown 
procedure. The mailing list will remain open for discussions.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478


From nobody Fri Apr 25 16:13:19 2014
Return-Path: <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42601A0415 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 Vh14_6SRgOD2 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B8C1A06B8 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20140425230936.16172.29040.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:09:36 -0700
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/7BB1vwMXnYtv1pbajb5eiA77_Jw
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:13:14 -0700
Subject: [spfbis] Milestones changed for spfbis WG
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 23:09:40 -0000

Changed milestone "A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment 
and its conclusions to the IESG for publication.", added
draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment to milestone.

Changed milestone "A standards track document defining SPF, based on
RFC4408 and as amended above, to the IESG for publication.", resolved
as "Done", added draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis to milestone.

URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/charter/


From nobody Fri Apr 25 16:38:55 2014
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4D51A06DF; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 mlbRT3F4sHKl; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AB71A06D3; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20140425233849.2326.6304.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:38:49 -0700
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/DyRrXIbULrJ_TNZT3SF6sRHylZE
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Subject: [spfbis] WG Action: Conclusion of SPF Update (spfbis)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 25 Apr 2014 23:38:51 -0000

The SPF Update (spfbis) Working Group in the Applications Area has 
concluded. The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba and Pete Resnick.

The mailing list will remain open.