Subject: [secdir] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:58:48 -0400

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The document is clear and describes the SPF mechanism effectively. The only
quibble that I could find is that repeated mentions are made of limiting
the number of 'DNS queries' without specifying whether these are individual
queries or recursive. The count will come out rather differently if looking
up TXT/x.example.com counts as one lookup or three. I think it is
reasonably clear that this is one but could not find an explicit statement
to that effect.

On the security side, the document addresses all the mail issues that I can
remember at this point and rather more besides.

I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns.

The document provides a clear enough warning to people configuring SPF
records as to the consequences of getting it wrong which is the main
concern. The filtering services will know their business well enough to
minimize false positives.

Hopefully the email infrastructure will evolve over time towards
concentrating on the more policy friendly approaches and it will be
possible to simplify the mechanism at a future date.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:16:35 -0700

Hi Phillip,
At 09:58 26-04-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>The document is clear and describes the SPF mechanism effectively. 
>The only quibble that I could find is that repeated mentions are 
>made of limiting the number of 'DNS queries' without specifying 
>whether these are individual queries or recursive. The count will 
>come out rather differently if looking up 
>TXT/<http://x.example.com>x.example.com counts as one lookup or 
>three. I think it is reasonably clear that this is one but could not 
>find an explicit statement to that effect.
>
>On the security side, the document addresses all the mail issues 
>that I can remember at this point and rather more besides.
>
>The document provides a clear enough warning to people configuring 
>SPF records as to the consequences of getting it wrong which is the 
>main concern. The filtering services will know their business well 
>enough to minimize false positives.
>

Thanks for the review.  I'll wait for the WGLC comments to be 
addressed before getting back to you about the quibble mentioned above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)