Subject: Re: [spfbis] Possible ABNF nit with Received-SPF

From: Arthur Thisell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:38:23 -0700 (PDT)

> No.  The "key" production specifies what goes on the *left* side of
> the "=" sign,

Agreed, that matches what I posted yesterday...

> I think it would be a good idea to change the name of the "identity"
> production to "identity-val", or some such, to avoid that confusion.

+1

> But I think there *is* a bug in the ABNF for "key": shouldn't
> "mechanism" be in quotes?  I think what's meant is to have something
> like this:
>
>   mechanism=MX
>
> Right?  That needs "mechanism" to be in quotes in the "key" production.

No.  As I explained in my post earlier today, that was intended to support unknown mechanisms.  So, if you had an SPF record from draft-mengwong-spf-00:

       v=spf1 a mx ptr domainkeys:_dk.%{d} -all

The Received-SPF header would look like:

    Received-SPF: unknown domainkeys=_dk.example.com

Actually, my memory is hazy, I don't remember the exact format.  I seen to recall the Received-SPF header field as being one of the least well thought out/standardized parts of SPF.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:52:19 -0400

> Agreed, that matches what I posted yesterday...
...
> No.  As I explained in my post earlier today,

I don't appear to be seeing these mystery posts.  I only see one
message from you in this discussion thread -- the one I'm responding
to.  Hm.

> that was intended to support unknown mechanisms.  So, if you had an SPF
> record from draft-mengwong-spf-00:
>

If that's the case, the text needs work to make it clear, because it's
decidedly not.  The text below the grammar lists key names and the
meanings of the values.  "mechanism" is listed as a key name in that
text.  So there's a problem somewhere that needs to be cleared up.

Barry

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:05:48 -0700

At 11:38 04-09-2012, Arthur Thisell wrote:
>No.  As I explained in my post earlier today, that was intended to 
>support unknown mechanisms.  So, if you had an SPF record from 
>draft-mengwong-spf-00:

There was a message on another thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02601.html and 
one of this thread at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02603.html

I gather that the unknown mechanism discussion was from the first message.

Regards,
-sm