Subject: Re: [spfbis] #4: RFC 4408 Section 4.1

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:37:50 -0800

Hello,

I'll attempt to summarize the discussion of Issue #1. If I 
misinterpreted or misunderstood your comments, please let me 
know.   The issue was based on the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00279.html

Scott Kitterman mentioned that it is out of scope and that SUBMITTER 
is a Sender ID concept unrelated to SPF [1].  Murray Kucherawy 
commented on adding SUBMITTER as an optional parameter to 
check_host() falls within none of those clauses of the charter 
[2].  Dotzero agreed that it should be considered out of scope [3].

Hector Santos mentioned that "enable the SUBMITTER SMTP extension in 
your SMTP server and there is clear evidence of wide client 
support".  He also mentioned that if there is a possibility 4405/4406 
is not going to be abandoned, then SPF-BIS has a clear role to consider it [4].

John Levine commented on it being a terrible idea [5].  Rolf 
Sonneveld commented that it was out of scope [6].  Alessandro Vesely 
mentioned that SPF already has two identities --mfrom and helo-- that 
maycomplement one another [7].  Hector Santos mentioned that 
SIDF/SUBMITTER offered the 3rd identity - PRA; he doesn't see it as 
out of scope if the charter includes consideration for the fate of 
4405/4406/4407 [8].

Arthur Thisell mentioned that the change to add submitter to 
check_hosts is, in itself, obviously bogus since it adds a term that 
is not defined or used anywhere else in the document [9].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00695.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00696.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00697.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00698.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00700.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00701.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00702.html
8. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00703.html
9. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00706.html

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:02:32 -0500

> out of scope if the charter includes consideration for the fate of

I think that's a fair summary of what I said.  I'll add that in addition to 
being out of scope for this WG, I think it's a "really bad" idea anyway.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:10:37 +0000

Hi SM,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 9:38 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] #4: RFC 4408 Section 4.1
> 
> Hello,
> 

I think your summary is accurate.  I also suggest that the only two dissenting opinions (from the same person) conflated the SUBMITTER issue as being in scope for the WG but out of scope for the RFC4408bis document.  It is possible for both to be true, as is the case now.

-MSK

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:18:57 -0500

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'll attempt to summarize the discussion of Issue #1.

   This is a typo, right -- you mean Issue #4?
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/ticket/4

> If I misinterpreted or misunderstood your comments, please let me 
> know.

   I interpreted these comments the same way.

   IMHO, the issue can mostly be laid to rest. Even Hector didn't
think such a change to check_host() is in-charter.

   However, let us not forget that some (hopefully brief) review of
RFC 4405 in our "result-of-experiment" document is in-charter.

   (I was sort-of hoping to hear from Hector what benefit he imagined
from passing SUBMITTER to check_host(); but I doubt he could have
convinced me it's a good idea...)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 18:20:36 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John Leslie
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:19 AM
> To: S Moonesamy
> Cc: [email-masked]
>    However, let us not forget that some (hopefully brief) review of RFC
> 4405 in our "result-of-experiment" document is in-charter.

I do indeed already have some treatment of the data Hector provided in the individual submission.  It will of course find its way into the working group version of the document.

-MSK

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:11:04 -0800

>http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/ticket/4

Sorry, that was a typo.  I meant Issue #4.

>RFC 4405 in our "result-of-experiment" document is in-charter.

I'll give a quick okay as long as it fits within the "conclusions" document.

At 10:10 06-03-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>I think your summary is accurate.  I also suggest that the only two 
>dissenting opinions (from the same person) conflated the SUBMITTER 
>issue as being in scope for the WG but out of scope for the 
>RFC4408bis document.  It is possible for both to be true, as is the case now.

I haven't discussed about what is in scope in relation to Issue #4 
with Andrew.  Arthur Thisell mentioned that SUBMITTER is not defined 
or used in RFC 4408.  There will be questions during the AD review if 
it is added in the second deliverable (4408bis).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:53 -0500

> it is added in the second deliverable (4408bis).

I'd prefer we didn't do it because it was not a technical valid approach than 
that the AD woud look at us funny if we did it because of the charter.

Scott K