Authentication-Results Registration Update for Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Results
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results' to Proposed Standard (draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-02.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Authentication-Results Registration Update for SPF Results' (draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-02.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Peter Saint-Andre. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum/
Technical Summary This brief document corrects an error in RFC 5451 regarding one Email Authentication Result Name (see RFC Editor Erratum #2617). Namely, the name "hardfail" is incorrect, and the name "fail" is correct (and is used in all existing implementations). As far as can be determined, all implementations of Sender Policy Framework (SPF) use "fail" instead of "hardfail", as specified in Section 2.5.4 of RFC 4408. The same is true of Sender-ID (see Section 5.3 of RFC 4406). The error in RFC 5451 was not caught during review of that specification. Although in practice the error has not yet caused confusion among implementers, it is best to correct the error in order to forestall possible interoperability problems. Working Group Summary This document is not the product of a working group. Document Quality Existing implementations use "fail" (RFC 4406, RFC 4408) instead of "hardfail" (RFC 5451), so there are implementations of the correction described in this specification. This document simply corrects the error in RFC 5451 and does define any new protocol. This correction was discussed on the email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org lists. Some people thought it might be appropriate to correct the error if and when the SPFBIS WG, whereas others thought it would be better to correct this simple error without opening up discussion of RFC 5451 more generally (and thus possibly delaying the fix). There was agreement that correcting error sooner rather than later would be preferable. Personnel The Document Shepherd / Responsible Area Director is Peter Saint-Andre.