Subject: [spfbis] Request adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 12:51:24 -0500

Dear colleagues,

We have received a request to adopt draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment
as a WG draft, to be used as the basis for declaring the SPF
experiment finished.

The chairs have read the draft and believe it is a good basis for the
WG's deliverable.  That is not to say that the chairs agree with
everything in it, nor to suggest that the draft as it stands is
acceptable to the WG.  

We would like to adopt the draft as a WG document.  We would like
indications of participants' views about that.  We require evidence
that the WG will in fact work on this draft, and therefore would like
at least five participants' commitment that they will work on the
draft.  Substantive comments on the draft itself will be counted as
commitment to working on the draft as a WG document.

If you object to adoption of the draft, please state both why you
object and what your alternative proposal for completion of our first
milestone is.  Objections without an alternative proposal will be
regarded with scepticism.  Please remember that disagreeing with some
particular claim in the draft is not a good reason to object to
adopting the draft: the draft will probably need to be modified in
order to reflect WG consensus.  It is only an objection that the draft
is by its nature unsuitable -- it covers entirely the wrong topics,
for instance -- that has any force in the absence of an alternative
adoption candidate.

If the WG adopts the draft, we expect to appoint Murray as editor
assuming that he is amenable and has time.  Assuming we hear no
reasonable objections, we will adopt the draft once the -00 queue
re-opens during the Paris IETF meeting.  If there is a reasonable
objection and an alternative -00 draft is ready when the queue
re-opens, we will consider the alternatives at that point; if no -00
alternative is available at the time the queue re-opens, we will take
that as evidence of uninterest in proposing a real alternative, and
proceed with adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment.

Best regards,

SM & AS (as chairs)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 18:01:43 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [spfbis] Request adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment
> 
> assuming that he is amenable and has time.

Yes, and yes.  Do I count as one of the five?  :-)

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:13:59 -0500

> proceed with adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment.

I don't object.  I have contributed and expect to do so.

I am confused about the process.  Is lack of such a request we haven't looked 
into adopting an RFC 4408bis draft?  Why five?

Scott K

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:30:17 -0500

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 01:13:59PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> into adopting an RFC 4408bis draft? 

No, it isn't.  You may recall that we originally asked for reviews of
4408 (which has turned into a list of issues).  The adoption of a
4408bis starting point will come once we have sorted out whether some
of the issues are real issues or not.  Please be patient.

> Why five?

It's an arbitrary number, large enough to suggest that there is
meaningful participation and yet small enough that if people wander
off we're still likely to have enough reviewers to indicate real
consensus. 

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:53:34 -0500

While it is extremely overwhelming to see a single person take control 
of some many of the documented and related in form or another 
documents, which begins to alter the engineering insights and sense of 
cooperative competition, its not much of an bigger issue than to major 
conflict of interest issue being exhibited by including the concepts 
of using DKIM, AUTH-RES into SPF and also use DKIM to determine the 
faith of SENDER-ID, SUBMITTER.

I can walk away from all this and have complete faith on my 
engineering peers to do the common sense engineering.  But when its 
obvious done for a purpose that is very questionable, then it really 
leaves people with a bitter pill to swallow and an empathetic recourse 
when the WGC have a predisposition to filter discontent.

Just consider the charter did have an document for review 
consideration. What was it not use as the basis to be fune tuned with 
all the same expected pros and cons, you say CAN HAPPEN for murray's 
document as well, but we all know is likely to be the case to occur 
because you can control the opposition.

That said, I don't really care if Murray is the editor, wish he was 
more open minded, but I don't care as long as SPF-BIS is not used as a 
leverage to alter its fundamental design, replaced Received-SPF with 
AUTH-RES, make it less deterministic, and use DKIM to replaced 
SENDER-ID and eliminate SUBMITTER.

Since when did the IETF get involved in the Product Support business?

Don't worry Mr Sullivan. No need to issue more threats. I'm about to 
drop out of this SPF-BIS I knew from its beginning will be infested 
with fleas. I see it becoming another DKIM WG of isolated conflict of 
interest - after all, its the same group of people, and now the SAME 
EDITOR.

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 14:12:45 -0500

Dear colleagues,

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 01:53:34PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote:
> consideration. 

As I already mentioned in my note to Scott, that document will come up
in the future.  The present issue is whether to adopt the proposed
document in order to settle the question of the SPF/Sender-ID
experiment.  This is our first milestone:

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

Best regards,

A

PS: I acknowledge having read the rest of that message.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Midgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:19:20 +0000

I support adoption of the draft as a WG document.
I will contribute to the draft officially as I have been unofficially.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [spfbis] Request adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment

Dear colleagues,

We have received a request to adopt draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment as a WG draft, to be used as the basis for declaring the SPF experiment finished.

The chairs have read the draft and believe it is a good basis for the WG's deliverable.  That is not to say that the chairs agree with everything in it, nor to suggest that the draft as it stands is acceptable to the WG.  

We would like to adopt the draft as a WG document.  We would like indications of participants' views about that.  We require evidence that the WG will in fact work on this draft, and therefore would like at least five participants' commitment that they will work on the draft.  Substantive comments on the draft itself will be counted as commitment to working on the draft as a WG document.

If you object to adoption of the draft, please state both why you object and what your alternative proposal for completion of our first milestone is.  Objections without an alternative proposal will be regarded with scepticism.  Please remember that disagreeing with some particular claim in the draft is not a good reason to object to adopting the draft: the draft will probably need to be modified in order to reflect WG consensus.  It is only an objection that the draft is by its nature unsuitable -- it covers entirely the wrong topics, for instance -- that has any force in the absence of an alternative adoption candidate.

If the WG adopts the draft, we expect to appoint Murray as editor assuming that he is amenable and has time.  Assuming we hear no reasonable objections, we will adopt the draft once the -00 queue re-opens during the Paris IETF meeting.  If there is a reasonable objection and an alternative -00 draft is ready when the queue re-opens, we will consider the alternatives at that point; if no -00 alternative is available at the time the queue re-opens, we will take that as evidence of uninterest in proposing a real alternative, and proceed with adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment.

Best regards,

SM & AS (as chairs)

--
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
spfbis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:19:40 +0100

> assuming that he is amenable and has time. 

+1 for adoption; Murray is a very patient and unwearied editor, IME.
Thanks for his commitment.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Mar 2012 19:37:03 -0000

>> assuming that he is amenable and has time.

Definitely.  No good deed goes unpunished.

R's,
John

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:14:53 -0500

> Thanks for his commitment.

Alessandro, I believe the chairs and ADs understand my position about 
Murray, at least I hope they do.  You may be surprise.

But overall, this may help, at the 2nd ever ISP Trade conference 
(OneBBS CON, before Phil Becker and Boardwatch Magazine sold it and it 
was renamed to OneISP Con), I presented a paper to a pack room crowd 
on the concept of

            Cooperative Competition or CoComp

which mean something to veterans of the mixed industry of standards, 
formats, adoption and strategic needs to converge, provide added-value 
yet not be used as a leverage against competition and especially the 
lower end (small to mid) of the market place.

IETF is more of a Project R&D and less than a Product R&D environment, 
and the latter is becoming more of a concern.  One can not use the 
tools of the IETF to put weight on implementators to move in an 
unclear and costly directions and I firmly believe we most of us 
believe that (otherwise I would be here), but yet at the same time, 
isolation and "Rough Consensus" is used to negate the Technical Merits 
concerns when warranted.

Its not that I don't agree with the ideas of convergence and 
integration because in fact, SSI near 30 years existence in the market 
place, excels in it. Its what we long practice in our product lines 
with the integration of many technologies and protocols since the 80s. 
Our motto is "Providing tomorrow technologies... today."

I recognize the issues and I am only providing input hoping it can 
reduce the "Out of the Gate" friction to make SPF-BIF a wild success. 
  I provided an offlist suggestion of perhaps having an I-D 
"Deployment Guide" for SPF, SIDF and maybe perhaps use it to introduce 
DKIM and AUTH-RES.

But to have a WG document that clearly had one goal to basically try 
to overwhelm and convince you to alter your course, well, I have a 
fundamental and ethical "Cooperative Competition" problem with that, 
not just for SSI, but for everyone that is not represented in this WG.

I have a half glass full approach to problem solver and firmly believe 
we ALL can have our cake and eat it too. But it will not work when 
conflict of interest overwhelm everything else.

I don't wish to say any more or feel I need to go any further.

---

From: Commerco WebMaster <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:51:17 -0700

On 3/5/2012 10:51 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> SM&  AS (as chairs)

I would be pleased to help in working on 
draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment and providing feedback where I can.

Best,

Alan M.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:33:34 -0800

Dear Mr Santos,

We have read the first message you posted to the SPFBIS working group 
mailing list on March 5, 2012 ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00751.html 
).  As SPFBIS Working Group Chairs, we are extremely concerned about 
the content of that message and your second message ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00756.html 
).  Could you please provide us with an explanation about:

  (a) the "threats" you are referring to in the first message?

  (b) the "conflict of interest" you are referring to in the
      first message and in the second message?

Regards,
Andrew Sullivan & S. Moonesamy, SPFBIS WG Chairs

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:57:55 -0500

S Moonesamy wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00751.html ).  As 
> SPFBIS Working Group Chairs, we are extremely concerned about the 
> content of that message and your second message ( 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00756.html ).  
> Could you please provide us with an explanation about:
> 

I don't believe it is of value to repeat what was ready stated to you 
and AS offlist.  In this "first message" it is filled with explicit 
statements of preemption of what is considered constructive or not.

>  (b) the "conflict of interest" you are referring to in the

What is vexing to me is why it appears to be a burden or need to 
repeatedly restate the concerns on-list or off-list?  I tried a new 
approach with the "Cooperative Competitive" statement in this 2nd 
message.  I really don't know how else it can stated.

Maybe this layman video on Pareto Optimality may help. Just substitute 
iPAD or Pecan Pies with the IETF Product trying to be produced here in 
IETF SPF-BIS:

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCuI-2LI6-M

Point #1:

    A situation is efficient if no change is possible that
    will help some people without harming others.

Point #2:

    Point #1 is only half the reality, requiring you to see
    the video because I can not see how else the issue can be stated.

TIP: As you view the video, replace iPAD or PIES with an IETF "Product 
Line."

If that doesn't do it, then nothing else will.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:46:30 -0800

Hi Hector,
At 15:57 05-03-2012, Hector Santos wrote:
>I don't believe it is of value to repeat what was ready stated to 
>you and AS offlist.  In this "first message" it is filled with 
>explicit statements of preemption of what is considered constructive or not.

I have read Andrew's messages.  What he has been trying to do is to 
provide fair notice.  Could we please avoid such comments in future?

>message.  I really don't know how else it can stated.

Andrew and I are here to ensure that your technical comments, as any 
other WG participant, is given due consideration.  This is not based 
on four out of five comments.

There will be a Working Group Last Call on all the drafts before they 
are submitted to the IESG.  There will also be an IETF Last Call.  If 
anyone considers that the working group made an incorrect decision, 
the person can raise the issues so that they are given due 
consideration.  The comments submitted during an IETF Last Call are 
evaluated by the IESG.

If you have any concern, please contact us at [email-masked].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:25:30 -0500

> provide fair notice.  Could we please avoid such comments in future?

Did you go again!  But fair enough. I also suggest to not ask a direct
question in public to me designed to put me in the defensive when in
fact, you already knew the answer.

> anyone considers that the working group made an incorrect decision, the 
> person can raise the issues so that they are given due consideration.  

Right, this is part of issue. The concerns has been stated, the
outcome predetermined, the conflicts are obvious and this simply says
to just puts it aside and its almost guaranteed to exclude the
original concerns come LC. It leaves one in a very dead horse position
with only one recourse - IETF Appeal which ironically I already been
told "Don't bother!"

So that said, I'm giving up. I don't need to support whatever SPF-BIF
changes anyway. This is another DKIM situation, its all about DKIM,
not SPF. It was really never about SPF. I already have a few off-list
friendly wagers which I hope I would lose, but I doubt it.

There is only way I see this being successful, change the charter to
make explicitly out of scope:

    - DKIM
    - AUTH-RES
    - USING DKIM TO EVALUATE SENDER-ID/SUBMITTER FATE.

Anyway the good news, I'm subscribing off this DKIM-SPF-BIS list. That
should help drive it consensus by Osmosis.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:22:47 -0800

> Yes, and yes.  Do I count as one of the five?  :-)

that sounds like a conflict of interest...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:22:45 -0500

> that sounds like a conflict of interest...

   ... or an interest of conflict???

   ;^)

   BTW, I will definitely comment once it's a WG draft. (Whether that
will be "contributing" may be in the eye of the beholder...)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:33:19 -0800

> that sounds like a conflict of interest...

Just realized that I was so focused on being clever, that I forgot to add my 
unconflicted votes in favor of adopting the draft and assigning Murray as the 
editor for it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:34:47 -0500

On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 08:33:19 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> unconflicted votes in favor of adopting the draft and assigning Murray as
> the editor for it.

Since we're being snarky today ...

I thought the IETF didn't vote?

Scott K

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:43:24 -0800

> I thought the IETF didn't vote?

mumble.  right.  grrr.  what do we call a +1?

d/

ps. I was being snarky /yesterday/.  Today I'm trying to be constructive.

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Paul Midgen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 17:28:55 +0000

discrete cumulative non-parliamentary concurrence

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Request adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment

On 3/6/2012 8:34 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Just realized that I was so focused on being clever, that I forgot to 
>> add my unconflicted votes in favor of adopting the draft and 
>> assigning Murray as the editor for it.
>

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:19:20 +0000

> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> add my unconflicted votes in favor of adopting the draft and assigning
> Murray as the editor for it.

Second answer. :-)

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:29:23 +0000

I've bounced this idea off a couple of people and so far it's been well-received, so here I am, going for broke.  :-)

Given our deliberations over the type 99 issue that spilled into the main IETF list talking about new RRtypes, provisioning systems, etc., I would like to suggest that we tell SPF's story with respect to these issues in the experiment document, as an appendix.  I don't have any specific text to suggest yet, but I wanted to float the general idea here first.

We might cover topics like:

- we generally like the idea of doing dedicated RRtypes for specific work, however...
- SPF was first incubated outside the IETF, so it started off using TXT, and there it has mostly stayed
- at the time, the road to getting a dedicated RRtype for experimentation was steep and prickly
- DNS provisioning tools haven't kept up, and generally don't
- the text of RFC4408 didn't exactly encourage migration
- things might've gone "better" had these last four bullets not been true
- etc.

Comments?

-MSK

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:40:59 -0500

As an adjunct to explaining the results of the spf experiment, I think 
it's valuable information. I'm ambivalent to whether it's in an appendix 
or just another section.

     Tony Hansen

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:44:12 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] A suggestion about the experiment document
> 
> it's valuable information. I'm ambivalent to whether it's in an
> appendix or just another section.

I suggested an appendix because it's technically off-topic in terms of the charter and the title of the document.  But I don't feel strongly about it either.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:51:10 -0500

On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 09:44:12 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> > Of Tony Hansen Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:41 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> I suggested an appendix because it's technically off-topic in terms of the
> charter and the title of the document.  But I don't feel strongly about it
> either.

Since what was or was not the experiment was never clearly defined, I think 
it's whatever we reasonably want it to be.

Scott K

---

From: Leonard Mills <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 21:42:26 +0000

> Given our deliberations over the type 99 issue that spilled into the main IETF list talking about new RRtypes, provisioning systems, etc., I would like to suggest that we tell SPF's story with resp…

Seems like a very good idea to me.  Right now tge intent is probably more
important than the particular items covered, but "what went before" can be
important in fleshing out descriptions.

Len

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:54:55 -0800

On 3/6/2012 1:40 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> As an adjunct to explaining the results of the spf experiment, I think it's
> valuable information. I'm ambivalent to whether it's in an appendix or just
> another section.

The choice of DNS record type isn't mainstream to the SPF story, in my view. 
Using the DNS for /a/ record is, but which of the two isn't.

In addition, the topic of DNS RR type has rather a lot of history in the 
community and it could distract the reader from what /is/ the SPF story.

So I suggest appendix is better. (I think that means I +1'd having the text in 
the document...)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:55:40 -0500

On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 09:29:23 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> - the text of RFC4408 didn't exactly encourage migration

Given the state of the art when RFC 4408 was published, the SHOULD publish 
Type SPF was advice in advance of the facts.  I think in fact it was far more 
encouraging that was technically justified at the time (that's where the MUST 
publish at least one type without specifying which comes from).  The major 
interoperability issue that's come up in this working group is precisely from 
RFC 4408 being too encouraging.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 22:05:50 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:56 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Given the state of the art when RFC 4408 was published, the SHOULD
> publish Type SPF was advice in advance of the facts.  I think in fact
> it was far more encouraging that was technically justified at the time
> (that's where the MUST publish at least one type without specifying
> which comes from).  The major interoperability issue that's come up in
> this working group is precisely from RFC 4408 being too encouraging.

My fault for being imprecise.  I was referring specifically to the interoperability bug that's been identified, where neither side was guaranteed to publish or query type 99, so they might never actually communicate.  I think the language thus ultimately encouraged both sides toward TXT, where the pre-IETF work was already firmly rooted anyway.

Regardless, I'm happy to just say something about this per WG consensus.  We don't need to resolve this now, but it seems like we generally think this is a good idea to include in the report, and that's good enough for the moment.

(I'm now observing in my DNS survey that there are also resolvers and/or firewalls that simply drop queries for unknown types; the TXT reply comes back right away, the SPF reply never comes.  We might want to mention that too.)

-MSK

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:51:08 +0100

On 06/Mar/12 22:51, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
>>

If spfbis is going to temporarily put type 99 aside, this topic
deserves a top-class explanation, IMHO.

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 13:42:43 +0100

On 06/Mar/12 23:05, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> (I'm now observing in my DNS survey that there are also resolvers
> and/or firewalls that simply drop queries for unknown types; the
> TXT reply comes back right away, the SPF reply never comes.  We
> might want to mention that too.)

Yes, please.  Do you measure how many servers do that?

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 18:04:50 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 4:43 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> > and/or firewalls that simply drop queries for unknown types; the TXT
> > reply comes back right away, the SPF reply never comes.  We might want
> > to mention that too.)
> 

The current survey does not, unfortunately.  I only noticed the pattern once it was well into its run.  I can, of course, add that check and re-run it.  But I'm not sure it matters that much to get numbers; observing that it happens at all is interesting by itself.

-MSK

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:16:57 -0500

No hat.

> (I'm now observing in my DNS survey that there are also resolvers and/or firewalls that simply drop queries for unknown types; the TXT reply comes back right away, the SPF reply never comes.  We mi…

This is a well-known problem, and was something people worried about
with DNSSEC.  See http://www.iis.se/docs/Routertester_en.pdf,
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac035.pdf, and RFC 5625.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:01:08 +0000

> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 10:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]

"Fifty Mission Cap" here.

> http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac035.pdf, and RFC 5625.

Is that a suggestion that we shouldn't bother talking about it, or that we should and this is potential reference material?  I think this is interesting data resulting from our surveys, but I don't want to beat a dead horse if we don't have anything new to contribute.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:15:45 -0500

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>TXT
>Is that a suggestion that we shouldn't bother talking about it, or that
>we should and this is potential reference material?  I think this is
>interesting data resulting from our surveys, but I don't want to beat a
>dead horse if we don't have anything new to contribute.

If I may stretch the metaphor...

I'd suggest that since people are still claiming new RR types are useful (Type SPF is hardly new anymore, but that only amplifies the point), the horse isn't dead and you ought to reload the shotgun.

Scott K

---

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:25:34 +0100

On 3/7/12 8:15 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> "Murray S. Kucherawy"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>

in other words: document it, either by describing the problem in a few 
lines or adding a reference to the documents Andrew mentioned (or both),

/rolf

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:19:36 -0500

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 07:01:08PM +0000, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> Is that a suggestion that we shouldn't bother talking about it, or
> that we should and this is potential reference material?  I think
> this is interesting data resulting from our surveys, but I don't
> want to beat a dead horse if we don't have anything new to
> contribute.

I guess with my hat on, it would be useful to point to it and say,
"Here are some observations, possibly related to [references]."  For
the latter, I'd particularly encourage citing the proxy
recommendations, since they seem to be part of what's giving you
trouble.

A 

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:08:14 -0500

On Wednesday, March 07, 2012 08:25:34 PM Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> >>>> reply comes back right away, the SPF reply never comes.  We might
> >> 
> >> want
> >> 
> >>>> to mention that too.)
> >>> 
> >> that
> > I'd suggest that since people are still claiming new RR types are useful
> > (Type SPF is hardly new anymore, but that only amplifies the point),
> > the horse isn't dead and you ought to reload the shotgun.

I think having some hard numbers to point to is incredibly valuable.  
Something like "one bazillion domains were surveyed for published DNS records 
of Type TXT and Type SPF.  Of these, all but three successfully answered the 
request for Type TXT, and 12,427 did not answer the Type SPF request at all."  
A set of facts like that would give us a good basis for understanding the 
reliability and performance impacts of using Type SPF (and provide some more 
general lessons i think on the challanges with new RR deployment).

Scott K

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:38:41 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> assuming that he is amenable and has time.

So far as we are able to determine, there are no objections to this
planned course of action.  We commited (and remain commited) to
undertaking this action in Paris (anyway, we can't publish a -00 until
then).  But in the absence of any controversy about either the draft
or the planned editor, your chairs would not consider it a problem if
some work happened on this draft before Paris.

Best,

Andrew (for the chairs)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:43:06 -0400

> some work happened on this draft before Paris.

I have no objection to the document or the editor, but it's difficult to know, 
in the absence of an overall structure for the work of the group if I should 
or not.  I still find the piecemeal, scattershot approach we are using 
inefficient and confusing.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:44:30 +0000

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] Request adoption of draft-kucherawy-spfbis- experiment
> 
> then).  But in the absence of any controversy about either the draft or
> the planned editor, your chairs would not consider it a problem if some
> work happened on this draft before Paris.

We could petition our AD to let the -00 in past the embargo if we really want to do so.  But I'm fine either way.

-MSK

---

From: Dotzero <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:51:43 -0400

> discrete cumulative non-parliamentary concurrence

I was going to go with positive affirmation.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:51:55 +0000

> But in the absence of any controversy about either the draft or

By way of an update, I've retooled the survey I was running to record both the reply I got (or NXDOMAIN) as well as the time it took for the reply to come.  This will help to detect firewalls and DNS servers that discard unknown queries.  Such isn't conclusive (recording SERVFAIL along with how long it took for that reply to come is a heuristic to detect it), but it may log an interesting pattern.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:23:10 +0000

> work happened on this draft before Paris.

And so in terms of getting work done on progressing it while we wait for the -00 embargo to lift, here are the work items as I see them:

1) Add Microsoft/Hotmail's DNS survey results when they're available (probably late this month).

2) Add my own DNS survey results, which I've just restarted, when they're available (probably late this month).

3) Add any other data that might be contributed by others.

4) People whose data I've cited should be sure I've represented them correctly in the document.

5) What would we like to see in the Conclusions section based on the data we've collected?

I think we could start on (5) at the same time as the others because the surveys running are very probably only going to reaffirm what earlier surveys suggested.  My intent is to have all the points in that section be of the form "Based on X, we conclude Y, because Z.", where X appears in the data sections above that in the document, and Z might include references to other materials to support the Ys.

I have my own opinions about all the points this document has to cover, but my job as editor is to reflect consensus, so it's important that people participate so consensus can be determined and recorded.  This WG has a lot of energy and so the content in here should be quite well-formed once we're done.

So, does anyone want to make a straw man conclusion set to get us started?

-MSK

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:26:21 -0700

On 3/12/2012 12:51 PM, Dotzero wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Paul Midgen<[email-masked]>  wrote:

might be more interesting to have a negative affirmation.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dotzero <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:44:24 -0400

> might be more interesting to have a negative affirmation.

I'm still trying to figure out how DKIM got dragged into the thread.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:31:56 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dotzero
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 7:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Paul Midgen

My best guess is that the document says SPF is part of a small group of domain-level email authentication technologies, and offers DKIM as another example.  But that's it.

-MSK

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:46:23 -0700

At 13:23 12-03-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>And so in terms of getting work done on progressing it while we wait 
>for the -00 embargo to lift, here are the work items as I see them:

There hasn't been any alternative proposal for the "conclusion" 
draft.  The following people committed to work on 
draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment ( 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-spfbis-experiment-03 ):

  Commerco WebMaster
  Alessandro Vesely
  Paul Midgen
  John Levine
  Dave Crocker
  John Leslie
  Dotzero

>I think we could start on (5) at the same time as the others because 
>the surveys running are very probably only going to reaffirm what 
>earlier surveys suggested.  My intent is to have all the points in 
>that section be of the form "Based on X, we conclude Y, because Z.", 
>where X appears in the data sections above that in the document, and 
>Z might include references to other materials to support the Ys.

The chairs already mentioned that it is not a problem if some work 
happened on this draft before Paris.  There hasn't been any reply to 
the above question.  What would the people mentioned above and other 
WG participants like to see in the Conclusions section?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy