> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SM > Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 7:42 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-01.txt> > (Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results) to > Proposed Standard Hi SM, > As a editorial nit, the Introduction Section mentions that the memo > updates the IANA registries. Erratum # 2617 is also about Section > 2.4.2. I suggest changing the heading of Section 3 to "Update to > Section 2.4.2 of RFC 5451" and some rewording of the paragraph: > > The "hardfail" result value for [SPF] (and thus also for [SENDER-ID]) > in Section 2.4.2 of RFC 5451 is replaced with the "fail" result value. > > fail: This client is explicitly not authorized to inject or relay > mail using the sender's DNS domain. That's a reasonable suggestion, but I think the important thing is to change the registry than to update RFC5451 itself. If there are any sites that actually used the wrong value found in the original document, they may continue to do so and the definition for it needs to be in effect someplace. > Note that the update affects the example in Appendix B.5. There's a separate erratum against the example as well, but that's less of a bug than a registry inconsistency. We can fix the example whenever we feel like advancing a proper RFC5451bis. Nevertheless, I wouldn't object to acknowledging in this draft that the example you cited also has the same error. Would that suffice? -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf