summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt283
1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2c39c84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6577.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy
+Request for Comments: 6577 Cloudmark, Inc.
+Updates: 5451 March 2012
+Category: Standards Track
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Authentication-Results Registration Update for
+ Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Results
+
+Abstract
+
+ This memo updates the registry of authentication method results in
+ Authentication-Results: message header fields, correcting a
+ discontinuity between the original registry creation and the Sender
+ Policy Framework (SPF) specification.
+
+ This memo updates RFC 5451.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+ This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+ (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
+ received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+ Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
+ Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+ Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+ and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+ http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6577.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+ (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+ publication of this document. Please review these documents
+ carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+ to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
+ include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+ the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+ described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+
+
+
+Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 6577 Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction ....................................................2
+ 2. Keywords ........................................................2
+ 3. New 'fail' Definition ...........................................2
+ 4. IANA Considerations .............................................2
+ 4.1. Addition of 'Status' Columns ...............................3
+ 4.2. Update to Result Names .....................................3
+ 5. Security Considerations .........................................3
+ 6. References ......................................................4
+ 6.1. Normative References .......................................4
+ 6.2. Informative References .....................................4
+ Appendix A. Examples in RFC 5451 ...................................5
+ Appendix B. Acknowledgements .......................................5
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ [AUTHRES] defined a new header field for electronic mail messages
+ that presents the results of a message authentication effort in a
+ machine-readable format. That Request for Comments created a
+ registry of results for a few message authentication mechanisms, one
+ of which was the Sender Policy Framework [SPF]. The registry
+ contains one entry that is inconsistent with the latter
+ specification, which was noted in an erratum [ERR2617] filed with the
+ RFC Editor. This memo updates the IANA registries accordingly.
+
+2. Keywords
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
+
+3. New 'fail' Definition
+
+ The new "fail" result, replacing the existing "hardfail" result for
+ [SPF] (and thus also for [SENDER-ID]) has the same definition for
+ "hardfail" that was used in Section 2.4.2 of [AUTHRES], namely:
+
+ This client is explicitly not authorized to inject or relay mail
+ using the sender's DNS domain.
+
+4. IANA Considerations
+
+ This section enumerates requested actions of IANA, per [IANA].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 6577 Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012
+
+
+4.1. Addition of 'Status' Columns
+
+ IANA has amended the Email Authentication Methods and Email
+ Authentication Result Names registries, both in the Email
+ Authentication Parameters group, by adding to each a column called
+ "Status" that will indicate for each entry its current status. Legal
+ values for these columns are as follows:
+
+ active: The entry is in current use.
+
+ deprecated: The entry is no longer in current use.
+
+ New registrations to either table MUST specify one of these values.
+
+ All existing entries, except as specified below, are to be noted as
+ "active" as of publication of this memo.
+
+4.2. Update to Result Names
+
+ [AUTHRES] listed "hardfail" as the result to be used when a message
+ fails an [SPF] evaluation. However, this latter specification used
+ the string "fail" to denote such failures.
+
+ Therefore, IANA has marked "hardfail" in the Email Authentication
+ Result Names registry as "deprecated" and amended the "fail" entry as
+ follows:
+
+ Code: fail
+
+ Defined: [AUTHRES]
+
+ Auth Method: spf, sender-id
+
+ Meaning: [this memo] Section 3
+
+ Status: active
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ This memo corrects a registry error. It is possible that older
+ implementations will not recognize or use the corrected entry. Thus,
+ implementers are advised to support both result strings for some
+ period of time. However, it is known that some implementations are
+ already using the SPF-defined result string.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 6577 Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012
+
+
+6. References
+
+6.1. Normative References
+
+ [AUTHRES] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating
+ Message Authentication Status", RFC 5451, April 2009.
+
+ [ERR2617] "RFC Errata", Errata ID 2617, RFC 5451,
+ <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
+
+ [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+6.2. Informative References
+
+ [ERR2818] "RFC Errata", Errata ID 2818, RFC 5451,
+ <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
+
+ [IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+ IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+ May 2008.
+
+ [SENDER-ID] Lyon, J. and M. Wong, "Sender ID: Authenticating
+ E-Mail", RFC 4406, April 2006.
+
+ [SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
+ for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
+ RFC 4408, April 2006.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 6577 Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012
+
+
+Appendix A. Examples in RFC 5451
+
+ It should be noted that this update also applies to the examples in
+ [AUTHRES], specifically the one in Appendix B.5. The error there
+ [ERR2818] is not corrected by this update, which only deals with the
+ normative portions of that specification and the related IANA
+ registrations. However, it is assumed one could easily see what
+ needs to be corrected there.
+
+ Corrected examples will be included in a full update to [AUTHRES] at
+ some future time.
+
+Appendix B. Acknowledgements
+
+ The author wishes to acknowledge the following for their review and
+ constructive criticism of this proposal: S. Moonesamy, Scott
+ Kitterman.
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Murray S. Kucherawy
+ Cloudmark, Inc.
+ 128 King St., 2nd Floor
+ San Francisco, CA 94107
+ US
+
+ Phone: +1 415 946 3800
+ EMail: msk@cloudmark.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 5]
+