From nobody Wed Feb 17 01:26:37 2021
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE1B3A1873 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:26:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FWHTv6tRu924 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 005EF3A1872 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 8977BF40759; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:26:30 -0800 (PST)
To: scott@kitterman.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: me@kasparetter.com, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20210217092630.8977BF40759@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/ZRr3DM5XKehKhEgMZcOZYKiZqeQ>
Subject: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6432)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:26:35 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208,
"Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6432

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Kaspar Etter <me@kasparetter.com>

Section: 4.4

Original Text
-------------
In accordance with how the records are published (see Section 3
above), a DNS query needs to be made for the <domain> name, querying
for type TXT only.

Corrected Text
--------------
?

Notes
-----
Request for clarification: Are CNAME indirections allowed or, in other words, do they have to be followed during record lookup? If yes, do they count towards the DNS lookup limits as defined in section 4.6.4? If yes, the following sentence has to be adapted as well: "SPF implementations MUST limit the total number of those terms to 10 during SPF evaluation, to avoid unreasonable load on the DNS." If the answer to the first question is no, then this should be made clear in section 4.4.

Please note that whether using CNAMEs is a good or bad idea is irrelevant to my question. I also know that you can't add a CNAME record to an apex domain but SPF is not limited to such domains. I assume the answer/consensus will be the same for the initial, `a`,  `include`, `exists` and `redirect` lookups. If not, this should also be clarified, of course.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7208 (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
Publication Date    : April 2014
Author(s)           : S. Kitterman
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : SPF Update
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG


From nobody Wed Feb 17 01:36:49 2021
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841AA3A1889 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:36:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucqhad9tp1Nu for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68D313A1888 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 16102F40759; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:36:43 -0800 (PST)
To: scott@kitterman.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: me@kasparetter.com, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20210217093643.16102F40759@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 01:36:43 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/3-IYwglLuxr8t-UQMevUm4pJXBc>
Subject: [spfbis] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6433)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:36:48 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208,
"Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6433

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Kaspar Etter <me@kasparetter.com>

Section: 3

Original Text
-------------
   Each SPF record is placed in the DNS tree at the owner name it
   pertains to, not in a subdomain under the owner name.  This is
   similar to how SRV records [RFC2782] are done.

Corrected Text
--------------
   Each SPF record is placed in the DNS tree at the owner name it
   pertains to, not in a subdomain under the owner name.  This is
   different from how SRV records [RFC2782] are done.

Notes
-----
SRV records are placed at specific subdomains, which is not the case for SPF records. (I've chosen Editorial instead of Technical because the meaning of this paragraph should be clear from the context and thus this feels more like a typo.)

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7208 (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
Publication Date    : April 2014
Author(s)           : S. Kitterman
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : SPF Update
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG


From nobody Wed Feb 17 08:12:24 2021
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F823A1B3D; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:12:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3f-a0GhI3Gvw; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:12:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6A0A3A1B38; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:12:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 470AEF40759; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:12:18 -0800 (PST)
To: me@kasparetter.com, scott@kitterman.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20210217161218.470AEF40759@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:12:18 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/fqK-JYVAcT90T3F4DWYkIxjo8O0>
Subject: [spfbis] [Errata Rejected] RFC7208 (6432)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:12:23 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7208,
"Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6432

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Kaspar Etter <me@kasparetter.com>
Date Reported: 2021-02-17
Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG)

Section: 4.4

Original Text
-------------
In accordance with how the records are published (see Section 3
above), a DNS query needs to be made for the <domain> name, querying
for type TXT only.

Corrected Text
--------------
?

Notes
-----
Request for clarification: Are CNAME indirections allowed or, in other words, do they have to be followed during record lookup? If yes, do they count towards the DNS lookup limits as defined in section 4.6.4? If yes, the following sentence has to be adapted as well: "SPF implementations MUST limit the total number of those terms to 10 during SPF evaluation, to avoid unreasonable load on the DNS." If the answer to the first question is no, then this should be made clear in section 4.4.

Please note that whether using CNAMEs is a good or bad idea is irrelevant to my question. I also know that you can't add a CNAME record to an apex domain but SPF is not limited to such domains. I assume the answer/consensus will be the same for the initial, `a`,  `include`, `exists` and `redirect` lookups. If not, this should also be clarified, of course.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
   Errata reports are not the place to ask questions.  An appropriate mailing list on which to discuss SPF is the <ietf-smtp> list.

--------------------------------------
RFC7208 (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
Publication Date    : April 2014
Author(s)           : S. Kitterman
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : SPF Update
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG