Subject: [spfbis] Status: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-07

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 02:45:12 -0700

This is a rough summary of the comments received for the WGLC of 
draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-07.  As usual, if your comments have 
been misinterpreted, please post a note on this thread.  Please do 
not use this thread for WGLC comments.

The last call closes on 2012-05-09 at 00:00 UTC.

On April 24, Scott Kitterman posted a message about the "policy 
statement and some specific (but different) logic" being factually 
incorrect [1].   Although the message was posted before the WGLC, 
I'll mention it.

Barry Leiba is happy with -07 [2].

In a message posted on April 25, Dotzero agreed with Scott on the 
record re-use issue and mentioned that leaving this unaddressed is 
problematic [3].  Douglas Otis [4] and John Levine [5] also agreed 
with Scott's concern.  John Levine mentioned that "although the data 
suggest that reused records had only a minor effect in practice, we 
did not resolve the issue, and so long as people continue to use both 
SPF and Sender-ID, there remains some risk that systems that intend 
to publish SPF will inavertently have their mail filtered by Sender-ID" [6].

Hector Santos does not think that there is a conflict [7].  Murray S. 
Kucherawy does not think "the SIDF re-use of SPF records is an 
important thing to call out in the experiment document because its 
contribution to the stats is hypothetical" [8] and Hector Santos 
agreed with him [9].

On April 26, Paul Midgen stated that he does not "see the point in 
trying to record some kind of historical note about the intentions of 
folks publishing SPF1 records with respect to how SenderID verifiers 
would use those records. Outside of hypothetical discussions, it has 
proven immaterial in practice" [10].  He mentioned in a further 
message that he agrees with -07.

Alessandro Vesely suggested having a survey about SPF deployment 
[11].  Philip Gladstone posted a clarification about the date he provided [12].

Douglas Otis agreed with the text suggested by Scott Kitterman to 
correct a "misstatement of the consensus effort" [13].  John Leslie 
also agreed and mentioned a nit [14].

On April 29, Dave Crocker posted a review [15].  The document editor 
that he made the changes which were suggested in his working copy 
[16].  There was also an exchange between Barry Leiba and Dave 
Crocker about normative references.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01434.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01454.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01457.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01458.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01460.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01464.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01465.html
8. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01471.html
9. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01472.html
10. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01483.html
11. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01484.html
12. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01495.html
13. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01498.html
14. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01499.html
15. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01492.html
16. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01493.html

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 23:02:02 +0000

One correction that will appear in the -08 version: All of the percentages in tables that read "<0.1%" are actually supposed to be "<1.0%".  Thanks to Philip Gladstone for spotting the error.

-MSK