hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail
Jun 20, 2008, 1:34 AM
Post #1 of 1
(207 views)
Permalink
|
|
For info, a new version of <toplabel>
|
|
Posted on the rfc.interest list:
>| Errata ID: 1081 (2007-11) was updated by Errata ID: 1353 (2008-03).
>| The fix proposed in ID 1353 is clearly better, e.g., ID 1081 allowed
>| (in theory) a toplabel 1-2-3, but ID 1353 requires a leading letter.
>|
>+ If ID 1353 is verified this should trigger follow-up errata for RFCs
>| 3696, 4408, and ietf-usefor-usefor. This list might be incomplete.
I try to get the IDNAbis folks to finally nail this <toplabel> beast.
After "at least one dot" killed by 2821bis - currently blocked by an
appealed DISCUSS [1} - the <toplabel> update [2] is the second point
in RFC 3696 that didn't survive the IETF process. Fortunately it is
also the last point relevant for SPF, we can simply pull the RFC 3696
reference in a future 4408bis.
Still unclear is the minimal length of a <toplabel>, SPF picked one,
USEFOR picked two. SPF got an RFC number, the approved USEFOR RFC on
standards track is blocked by a missing normative reference, SNAFU.
Frank
--
[1] http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/klensin-appeal-06-13-2008.txt
[2] http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1353
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
|
