6577
PROPOSED STANDARD
Authentication-Results Registration Update for Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Results (Obsoleted)
Authors: M. Kucherawy
Date: March 2012
Working Group: NON WORKING GROUP
Stream: IETF
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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6577
Obsoleted by: 7001 PROPOSED STANDARD
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy
Request for Comments: 6577 Cloudmark, Inc.
Updates: <a href="./rfc5451">5451</a> March 2012
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">Authentication-Results Registration Update for</span>
<span class="h1">Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Results</span>
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 <a href="./rfc5451">RFC 5451</a>.
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 <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6577">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6577</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 1]</span><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6577">RFC 6577</a> Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Keywords ........................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. New 'fail' Definition ...........................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Addition of 'Status' Columns ...............................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Update to Result Names .....................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Examples in <a href="./rfc5451">RFC 5451</a> ...................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Acknowledgements .......................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
[<a id="ref-AUTHRES">AUTHRES</a>] 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 [<a href="#ref-SPF" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1"">SPF</a>]. The registry
contains one entry that is inconsistent with the latter
specification, which was noted in an erratum [<a href="#ref-ERR2617" title=""RFC Errata"">ERR2617</a>] filed with the
RFC Editor. This memo updates the IANA registries accordingly.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Keywords</span>
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 [<a href="#ref-KEYWORDS" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">KEYWORDS</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. New 'fail' Definition</span>
The new "fail" result, replacing the existing "hardfail" result for
[<a href="#ref-SPF" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1"">SPF</a>] (and thus also for [<a href="#ref-SENDER-ID" title=""Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail"">SENDER-ID</a>]) has the same definition for
"hardfail" that was used in Section 2.4.2 of [<a href="#ref-AUTHRES" title=""Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status"">AUTHRES</a>], namely:
This client is explicitly not authorized to inject or relay mail
using the sender's DNS domain.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This section enumerates requested actions of IANA, per [<a href="#ref-IANA" title="">IANA</a>].
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 2]</span><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6577">RFC 6577</a> Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Addition of 'Status' Columns</span>
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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Update to Result Names</span>
[<a id="ref-AUTHRES">AUTHRES</a>] listed "hardfail" as the result to be used when a message
fails an [<a href="#ref-SPF" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1"">SPF</a>] 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: [<a href="#ref-AUTHRES" title=""Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status"">AUTHRES</a>]
Auth Method: spf, sender-id
Meaning: [this memo] <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>
Status: active
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 3]</span><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6577">RFC 6577</a> Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-AUTHRES">AUTHRES</a>] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating
Message Authentication Status", <a href="./rfc5451">RFC 5451</a>, April 2009.
[<a id="ref-ERR2617">ERR2617</a>] "RFC Errata", Errata ID 2617, <a href="./rfc5451">RFC 5451</a>,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org">http://www.rfc-editor.org</a>>.
[<a id="ref-KEYWORDS">KEYWORDS</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-ERR2818">ERR2818</a>] "RFC Errata", Errata ID 2818, <a href="./rfc5451">RFC 5451</a>,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org">http://www.rfc-editor.org</a>>.
[<a id="ref-IANA">IANA</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
May 2008.
[<a id="ref-SENDER-ID">SENDER-ID</a>] Lyon, J. and M. Wong, "Sender ID: Authenticating
E-Mail", <a href="./rfc4406">RFC 4406</a>, April 2006.
[<a id="ref-SPF">SPF</a>] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
<a href="./rfc4408">RFC 4408</a>, April 2006.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 4]</span><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6577">RFC 6577</a> Auth-Results SPF Erratum March 2012</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Examples in <a href="./rfc5451">RFC 5451</a></span>
It should be noted that this update also applies to the examples in
[<a href="#ref-AUTHRES" title=""Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status"">AUTHRES</a>], specifically the one in <a href="#appendix-B.5">Appendix B.5</a>. The error there
[<a href="#ref-ERR2818" title=""RFC Errata"">ERR2818</a>] 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 [<a href="#ref-AUTHRES" title=""Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status"">AUTHRES</a>] at
some future time.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
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: [email protected]
Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 5]
Annotations
Select text to annotate