On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:53:41 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:02 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-03.txt > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2012 09:28:49 PM John Levine wrote: > > > Nits: in Sec 3, the description of r= still refers to rf=. > > > > Thanks. Fixed locally. > > > > > In 6.3, how come it says that a bounce address MUST pass SPF but a > > > HELO only SHOULD pass? (I'm not necessarily arguing, I'm asking.) > > > > > > Other than that, looks fine. > > > > Sending the report from an address the passes SPF, modulo bugs and DNS > > errors, solves the potential looping problem. If you're using NULL Mail > > From and the only identity you have for an SPF check is EHLO/HELO then > > there's still no loop problem, although you might generate an extra > > report if there's a rejection due to EHLO/HELO not passing SPF. > > The text in -03 says: > > "Per Section 2 of [DSN], the NULL envelope sender address of the report MAY > be chosen to ensure that no delivery status reports will be issued in > response to the report itself." > > That's not consistent with Section 2 of [DSN], which says SHOULD and MUST. > We should either drop the reference, or be consistent with it. If we drop > it, we need to be prepared to explain why we're contradicting [DSN], which > is a draft standard.
This isn't actually a DSN (is it)? Perhaps "Similar to Section 2 of [DSN} ..." instead of "Per Section 2 of [DSN] ..."? > Also: > > 1) 6.3 has a missing "<" before an xref, so the XML is revealed in the > produced document. Fixed locally. Thanks. > 2) I've changed "r=" to "ra=" so that all of the reporting tags are > distinguishable as "r[a-z]". Seem reasonable for yours as well? Sure. Done locally. I notice in your draft you use two styles for the ABNF specification: rep-ra-tag = %x72.61 spf-rp-tag = %x72 %x69 The SPF draft uses the latter format. Is one of these preferred? I suspect it would be better to pick one form and stick with it over using two (I'm not an ABNF expert at all, so please advise). Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
