-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> BTW, re PermError. Yes, ideally you are correct, but the test suite is
> about what the existing actual RFC4408 says, not what we wish we had put
> in while we were editing the final words.
I did NOT say that PermError should be required or even just allowed as a
result. I know that the spec doesn't even remotely specify PermError for
those cases. What I meant was that that _would_ have been a more sensible
way to go than considering "ip6:" a silent no-op.
> Also, consider ip6::://0. That certainly shouldn't be a PermError, yet
> it would match IP4 addresses under the BOTH AND theory and not otherwise.
Right. _I_ am not the one advocating the ::ffff:0/96 hole, though. :-)
> For SPFv3, you should come up with use cases for having ip6:::FFFF:*
> match something.
As Wayne mentioned a while ago, "ip4:" and "ip6:" really should get unified
into "ip:" (perhaps even together with "a:" into "host:" or something,
although I don't like that). Problem solved.
> Also, I suggest that the SPFv1 test suite be forked, and modified for
> SPFv3. That way we can hopefully hash this type of thing out before it
> is published.
Good idea.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFbwDcwL7PKlBZWjsRAsPhAJ9y8/LuvpOG1ZziYh4u4aWb5NSqTQCcD+ZY
IWnS74CBBzesXGjuWvvAIww=
=/O5y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
> BTW, re PermError. Yes, ideally you are correct, but the test suite is
> about what the existing actual RFC4408 says, not what we wish we had put
> in while we were editing the final words.
I did NOT say that PermError should be required or even just allowed as a
result. I know that the spec doesn't even remotely specify PermError for
those cases. What I meant was that that _would_ have been a more sensible
way to go than considering "ip6:" a silent no-op.
> Also, consider ip6::://0. That certainly shouldn't be a PermError, yet
> it would match IP4 addresses under the BOTH AND theory and not otherwise.
Right. _I_ am not the one advocating the ::ffff:0/96 hole, though. :-)
> For SPFv3, you should come up with use cases for having ip6:::FFFF:*
> match something.
As Wayne mentioned a while ago, "ip4:" and "ip6:" really should get unified
into "ip:" (perhaps even together with "a:" into "host:" or something,
although I don't like that). Problem solved.
> Also, I suggest that the SPFv1 test suite be forked, and modified for
> SPFv3. That way we can hopefully hash this type of thing out before it
> is published.
Good idea.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFbwDcwL7PKlBZWjsRAsPhAJ9y8/LuvpOG1ZziYh4u4aWb5NSqTQCcD+ZY
IWnS74CBBzesXGjuWvvAIww=
=/O5y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007