Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 18:36:53 +0100

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd 
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09
Title: Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov	
Review Date: 13 May 2012
IETF Last Call Date: (unknown)
IESG Telechat Date: (unknown)

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as an Informational document.

Major Issues: none
Minor Issues: none
Nits: none

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 09:39:44 +0900

Sorry to just use this review to piggyback a comment that I wanted to 
make for a while:

It would be very good if the abstract could include a summary of the 
document, not (only) an introduction to the history (two paragraphs) and 
a meta-summary of what it contains (paragraph copied below).

    After six years, sufficient experience and evidence have been
    collected that the experiments thus created can be considered
    concluded.  This document presents those findings.

If I understand 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09#section-6 
correctly, this could be done e.g. by changing the above paragraph to:

    After six years, sufficient experience and evidence have been
    collected that the experiments thus created can be considered
    concluded.  This document finds that SPF has widespread
    implementation and deployment, comparable to many standards
    track protocols, but that there is an absence of significant
    adoption for Sender ID.

This is just a first try; I'd personally favor to cut down the history 
part of the abstract and add more details to the conclusion part if 
possible.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2012/05/14 2:36, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 00:16:23 -0700

At 22:45 13-05-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I don't have any particular objection except that we shouldn't 
>change it at this point unless we get AD direction to do 
>so.  Consensus and all that.  :-)

Ok. :-)

I am copying this message to apps-discuss@ in case anyone from that 
mailing list wishes to follow up on the AppsDir review about 
draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.  The reviews (including Gen-ART and 
SecDir) and comments will be processed as part of the Last Call comments.

Please note that the document shepherd write-up may be updated with 
the following text being added to the Working Group Summary:

   Some participants were unhappy with the document's incomplete
   coverage of the history of the four Experimental documents and the
   controversies surrounding them.  In the end, working group consensus was
   for factual reporting.  Historical completeness is not the goal of this
   document.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:05:05 +0200

Hi SM,

>   for factual reporting.  Historical completeness is not the goal of this

For a fair update, I'd rather remove references to history, unless you
refer to the history that lead to this document.  I and others have
indicated a (not extreme) discontent for not covering some deployment
aspects, which cannot be considered historical albeit they used to be
upheld more vigorously in historical times.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 08:33:30 -0700

>upheld more vigorously in historical times.

It is up to the document shepherd, with the consent of the 
Responsible Area Director, to determine what goes into the 
write-up.  Based on feedback from two persons, it is easier for me to 
drop the suggested change to the write-up.

BTW, the "discontent" is not in the write-up as it was not apparent 
from the WGLC comments.  I'll send a note to the Responsible Area 
Director about that.

Regards,