On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 08:57:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Just took a pass through the document and found the following things:
Thanks for the review. > > - 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. Agreed. Done. > - The "ra=" definition talks about "r=", which should probably also > be "ra=" now. Fixed > - The "rp=" definition talks about signature authentication > failures. Should be path authorization failures. I made it SPF failures since that's what we're talking about. > - 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.) Yes. This is done with the exp= modifier. > - The ABNF for "spf-rr-tag" includes a reference to "spf-ro-tag" > which is undefined. Changed to 'spf-rr-type'. > - Section 4 also refers to the "ro" token, which should probably > also become "rr". Fixed. > - Section 4 also refers to "these lists", but there's only one. Fixed > - A note for later: If the SPFbis effort renames the result codes > to all lowercase, it'll have to "Updates" this one. Or not since they're technically case insensitive, either way we can address it later. I think it's an editorial preference, not a technical characteristic. > That's it. Great. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
