RFC Errata

Errata Search

Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Reported (2)

RFC 8461, "SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS)", September 2018

Source of RFC: uta (art)

Errata ID: 6253
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Daniel Shahaf
Date Reported: 2020-08-08

Section 3.2 says:

CRLF-separated key/value pairs

It should say:

LF- or CRLF-separated key/value pairs



1. The definition of 'sts-policy-term' in the grammar explicitly allows use of either CRLF or bare LF.

2. On page 8, one of the example says "<CRLF>" explicitly at the end of the first line, while the second line of that example and all lines of the other example have neither "<CRLF>" nor "<LF>" appended to them. That makes it ambiguous whether those lines are terminated by LF or by CRLF.

Errata ID: 6285
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Paul Buonopane
Date Reported: 2020-09-10

Section 3.1 says:

sts-field-delim = *WSP ";" *WSP

It should say:

sts-field-delim = ";" *WSP


The following text appears within the same section:

> If multiple TXT records for "_mta-sts" are returned by the resolver, records that do not begin with "v=STSv1;" are discarded.

The current definition of sts-field-delim is incompatible with that instruction. Either the instruction needs to be changed, a new delimiter needs to be defined that doesn't permit whitespace before the semicolon, or sts-field-delim needs to be modified.

Report New Errata