1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
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]
^L
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]
^L
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]
^L
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]
^L
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]
^L
|
