Julian Mehnle ha scritto:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Sunday 17 June 2007 04:18, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>>> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> [...] If someone want to do an errata to say multiple <b>
>>>> non-identical </b> records, I'm all for it. There can be no harm in
>>>> multiple records that are identical, it generates no ambiguity.
>>> This _might_ have been the best resolution 2-3 years ago. However,
>>> now we cannot do that anymore, as it would require implementations to
>>> check for whether multiple records are identical or not. And grafting
>>> this onto RFC 4408 with a "SHOULD" (i.e. not strictly requiring the
>>> new behavior) wouldn't solve the problem at hand.
>> OK. How about MUST Permerror on multiple SPF records, except
>> implementations MAY treat multiple identical records as a single record?
>
> I think we could do that.
>
> But this would still just make the inconclusive interpretation of the spec
> explicit, and leave the problem to be fixed in the test suite.
I agree. I think that it is better to have "problems/corner case"
explicit anyway to make implementors aware of the issue.
The solution for the test suite would be to allow both results or to
change the multiple identical rr to multiple different rr (or maybe both
changes).
Stefano
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311533&user_secret=456ecacd
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Sunday 17 June 2007 04:18, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>>> Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>>> [...] If someone want to do an errata to say multiple <b>
>>>> non-identical </b> records, I'm all for it. There can be no harm in
>>>> multiple records that are identical, it generates no ambiguity.
>>> This _might_ have been the best resolution 2-3 years ago. However,
>>> now we cannot do that anymore, as it would require implementations to
>>> check for whether multiple records are identical or not. And grafting
>>> this onto RFC 4408 with a "SHOULD" (i.e. not strictly requiring the
>>> new behavior) wouldn't solve the problem at hand.
>> OK. How about MUST Permerror on multiple SPF records, except
>> implementations MAY treat multiple identical records as a single record?
>
> I think we could do that.
>
> But this would still just make the inconclusive interpretation of the spec
> explicit, and leave the problem to be fixed in the test suite.
I agree. I think that it is better to have "problems/corner case"
explicit anyway to make implementors aware of the issue.
The solution for the test suite would be to allow both results or to
change the multiple identical rr to multiple different rr (or maybe both
changes).
Stefano
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311533&user_secret=456ecacd
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com