Just took a pass through the document and found the following things:
- I think because it creates a registry that SPF implementations should know about, that this one should advertise that it updates RFC4408. (Barry, please check my math on this one.) I think that means we need a second paragraph in the Abstract saying "This memo updates RFC4408", and also add updates="4408" in the <rfc> tag. - The "ra=" definition talks about "r=", which should probably also be "ra=" now. - The "rp=" definition talks about signature authentication failures. Should be path authorization failures. - The DKIM reporting draft includes "rs=" to ask rejecting sites to use a particular string in the SMTP reply. Is that omitted here for a reason? (I have some vague recollection that SPF itself can do this, so maybe that's why.) - The ABNF for "spf-rr-tag" includes a reference to "spf-ro-tag" which is undefined. - Section 4 also refers to the "ro" token, which should probably also become "rr". - Section 4 also refers to "these lists", but there's only one. - A note for later: If the SPFbis effort renames the result codes to all lowercase, it'll have to "Updates" this one. That's it. -MSK
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
