Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      M. KucherawyRequest for Comments: 6577                               Cloudmark, Inc.Updates:5451                                                 March 2012Category: Standards TrackISSN: 2070-1721Authentication-Results Registration Update forSender Policy Framework (SPF) ResultsAbstract   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 updatesRFC 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 inSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://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 toBCP 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 2012Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Keywords ........................................................23. New 'fail' Definition ...........................................24. IANA Considerations .............................................24.1. Addition of 'Status' Columns ...............................34.2. Update to Result Names .....................................35. Security Considerations .........................................36. References ......................................................46.1. Normative References .......................................46.2. Informative References .....................................4Appendix A. Examples inRFC 5451 ...................................5Appendix B. Acknowledgements .......................................51.  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 20124.1.  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:  active5.  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 20126.  References6.1.  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 2012Appendix A.  Examples inRFC 5451   It should be noted that this update also applies to the examples in   [AUTHRES], specifically the one inAppendix 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.comKucherawy                    Standards Track                    [Page 5]