Subject: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:29:11 -0600

All,

I have made some updates to the charter based on feedback during IESG 
review. If I can sneak it onto the Thursday telechat this week, I might, 
but the IESG might be none too pleased for me to put it on so late, so 
it may wait two more weeks. We'll see.

Please review the below and see if there is anything that makes your 
head explode.

pr

---

Working Group Name:
     SPF Update (SPFBIS)

IETF Area:
     Applications Area

Chair(s):
     TBD

Applications Area Director(s):
     Pete Resnick<[email-masked]>
     Peter Saint-Andre<[email-masked]>

Applications Area Advisor:
     Pete Resnick<[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion:[email-masked]
     To Subscribe:    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
     Archive:    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/

Description of Working Group:
     The Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC4408) specifies the publication
     of a DNS record which states that a listed IP address is authorized
     to send mail on behalf of the listing domain name's owner.  SMTP
     servers extract the domain name in the SMTP "MAIL FROM" or "HELO"
     command for confirming this authorization.  The protocol has had
     Experimental status for some years and has become widely deployed.
     This working group will summarize the result of the experiment and
     revise the specification, based on deployment experience and listed
     errata, and will seek Standards Track status for the protocol.

     The MARID working group considered two specifications for
     publication of email-sending authorization:  Sender-ID, which
     eventually became RFC4405, RFC4406 and RFC4407, and SPF, which
     eventually became RFC4408, all in the end published under
     Experimental status.  By using IP addresses, both protocols specify
     authorization in terms of path, though unlike SPF, Sender-ID uses
     domain names found in the header of the message rather than the
     envelope.

     The two protocols rely on the same policy publication mechanism,
     namely a specific TXT resource record in the DNS.  This creates a
     basic ambiguity about the interpretation of any specific instance of
     the TXT record.  Because of this, there were concerns about
     conflicts between the two in concurrent operation.  The IESG note
     prepended to RFC 4405 through RFC 4408 defined an experiment with
     SPF and Sender-ID, and invited an expression of community consensus
     in the period following the publication of those specifications.

     Both technologies initially enjoyed widespread deployment.  Since
     that time, broad SPF use has continued, whereas use of Sender-ID has
     slackened.  Furthermore, SPF's linkage to the envelope (as opposed
     to Sender-ID's linkage to identifiers in the message content) has
     proven sufficient among operators.

     Formation of the SPF Update Working Group is predicated on three
     assumptions:

     1. The SPF/Sender-ID experiment has concluded.

     2. SPF has been a qualified success, warranting further development.

     3. Sender-ID has had less success, and no further development is 
justified.

     The working group will produce a document describing the course of
     the SPF/Sender-ID experiment, thus bringing that experiment to a
     formal conclusion.  The group will complete additional work on SPF
     (described below), but will not complete additional work on the
     Sender-ID specification.

     Changes to the SPF specification will be limited to the correction
     of errors, removal of unused features, addition of any enhancements
     that have already gained widespread support, and addition of
     clarifying language.

     Specifically out-of-scope for this working group:

     * Revisiting past technical arguments where consensus was reached in
       the MARID working group, except where review is reasonably
       warranted based on operational experience.

     * Discussion of the merits of SPF.

     * Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF.

     * Extensions to the SPF protocols.

     * Removal of existing features that are in current use.

     Discussion of extensions to the SPF protocols or removal of
     existing features shall only be discussed after completion of
     current charter items in anticipation of rechartering the working
     group.

     An initial draft of an updated SPF specification document is
     draft-kitterman-4408bis. The working group may choose to use this
     document as a basis for their specification.

Goals and Milestones:
     Aug 2012:    A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment
             and its conclusions to the IESG for publication.

     Dec 2012:    A standards track document defining SPF,
             based on RFC4408 and as amended above,
              to the IESG for publication.

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:50:51 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review
> 

Looks okay to me.

-MSK

---

From: Commerco WebMaster <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:54:11 -0700

Looks good, thank you.

Alan M.

On 1/31/2012 11:29 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 3. Sender-ID has had less success, and no further development is justified.
>