Subject: Re: [spfbis] #13: RFC 4408: Best-Guess SPF

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 03:16:04 -0500

S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> At 10:33 29-02-2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> please at leat define it.
> 
> I have been asked what "Hold for document update" means.  The working 
> group does not have any WG draft up for discussion yet.  When there is a 
> WG draft, the working group can discuss about the exact text that goes 
> into it.

Just to confirm and inform the WG, the SPF-BIS WG charter concluding 
paragraph would be incorrect and the cited 4408bis draft is out of scope?

     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.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:54:44 -0500

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

>group does not have any WG draft up for discussion yet.  When there 
>is a WG draft, the working group can discuss about the exact text 
>that goes into it.

How is that different than the issues we're discussing now? Is that the issue isn't expected to be controversial?

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 06:59:08 -0500

Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:

>is a 

It says the working group may. For reasons that aren't clear to me, the working group hasn't even discussed it yet. Nothing wrong with the charter.

Scott K

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 05:30:59 -0800

Hello,

The SPFBIS WG Charter mentions the topics which are in scope or out 
of scope ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/charter/ ).  A 
discussion about a topic can be off-topic for the moment although the 
topic itself is in scope.

Discussions about any non-WG draft is off-topic for the moment.  The 
draft mentioned in the charter is not a working group draft.  Drafts 
which are SPFBIS working group drafts will have a filename which 
starts with "draft-ietf-spfbis-".

The following issues are currently the being discussed:

  #1  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00538.html
  #4  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00694.html
  #13 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00715.html
  #17 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00718.html
  #19 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00716.html
  #23 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00717.html

A thread was also opened in case the WG would like to comment on 
"widely deployed" ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00725.html ).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
SPFBIS WG co-chair

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:47:42 -0500

>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00725.html ).

I am confused.

We've been discussing Murray's draft about concluding the 'experiment' and it's not, AFAIK, a working group document either.

Is it off topic now too?

Scott K

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:13:08 -0800

On 2/29/2012 11:14 PM, S Moonesamy wrote
> I have been asked what "Hold for document update" means. The working group does
> not have any WG draft up for discussion yet. When there is a WG draft, the
> working group can discuss about the exact text that goes into it.

ack. tnx.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net