Subject: [spfbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:33:06 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the SPF Update Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Resolution of The SPF/Sender-ID Experiment
	Author(s)       : Murray S. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-02.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2012-04-11

   In 2006 the IETF published a suite of protocol documents comprising
   SPF and Sender-ID, two proposed email authentication protocols.
   Because of interoperability concerns created by simultaneous use of
   the two protocols by a receiver, and some concerns with Sender-ID and
   compatibility with existing standards, the IESG required them to have
   Experimental status and invited the community to observe their
   deployments for a period of time, hoping convergence would be
   possible later.

   After six years, sufficient experience and evidence have been
   collected that the experiment thus created can be considered
   concluded, and a single protocol can be advanced.  This memo presents
   those findings.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-02.txt

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:36:09 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 10:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-02.txt
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the SPF Update Working Group
> of the IETF.
> 
> [...]

Since version numbers are free... :-)

This version breaks apart Section 3 as Alessandro suggested, and I think he's right that it's much more readable now.  Some minor wordsmith work was also done, but no data changed.

So again, if someone has more data to present, please do.  If you feel the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented, please elaborate.  If someone feels we have more data to collect, please specify.  Or if you've read it and you think we're done and ready to move on to our next deliverable, please say so.

-MSK