Subject: [spfbis] Summary of open issues

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:12:43 -0700

Hello,

Here's a summary of the open issues.

Issue #15 is about Section 2.2 of RFC 4408.  Scott Kitterman
  made a text change ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01626.html 
).   Alessandro Vesely commented on it ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01629.html ).

Issue #16 has been marked resolved ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01617.html ).

Issue #20 has been marked as resolved ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01618.html ).

Issue #8 has been marked as resolved ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01619.html )

Issue #19 has been marked as resolved ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01620.html ).

Issue #18 is about Section 2.5.6.  "DSN code" has been changed to 
"extended status code The reference was also changed.  I'll leave 
this one open in the tracker as there has ony been two comments ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01692.html ).

Issue #3 (erratum #99) is a typo in the IESG Note.  I am marking this 
issue as resolved.

Issue #23 is about typos in the draft.  The fix is in -00.  I am 
marking the issue as resolved.

Issue #1 is about Section 2.5.6.  Issue #18 is also about that 
subsection.  There were only two comments and a text change was 
proposed ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01633.html 
).  I'll leave this open.

Issue #7 is about downcasing result names.  Murray Kucherawy 
commented on this ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01639.html 
).  Barry Leiba mentioned that mixed-case invited confusion ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01649.html 
).  I'll leave this issue open.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:30:12 -0400

> ).  I'll leave this issue open.

Modulo one outlier I missed that's fixed locally, this is done in -01.  I think 
it's safe to close.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:36:46 -0400

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01629.html ).

Which I think we adequately answered:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01632.html

I think this one can be closed.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:42:21 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

Ticket #5 is shown as open in the tracker.  I believe it was resolved in the 
-01 draft.  Here are the relevant entries from the change summary:

      Clarified text about IPv4 mapped addresses to resolve test suite
      ambiguity

      Clarified ambiguity about result when more than 10 "mx" or "ptr"
      records are returned for lookup to specify permerror.  This
      resolves one of the test suite ambiguities

My recommendation is to close this one too.

Scott K

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:49:06 -0700

Hi Scott,

>I think this one can be closed.

I'll close Issues #7 and #15 by the end of the day if there aren't 
more comments.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:52:14 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

#22 	RFC 4408: Section 2.5.7 PermError on invalid domains after macro 
expansion

What turned out to be #22 had a bit of discussion on the list as a test suite 
related question, but it died out.  I liked Andrew's suggestion in:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01602.html

I would appreciate some ideas on how to do that in the ABNF as that's clearly 
the desired state.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:45:21 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

#2 	RFC 4408 Section B.3 - Errata #2250

This issue is still open in the tracker, but it was fixed in one of the pre-WG 
drafts.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:46:21 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

#17 	RFC 4408: Section 8.1 Undefined "uric" set

This is still open in the tracker, but was fixed in a pre-WG draft.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:48:15 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

#28 	i18n for EAI compatibility

This issue is still open in the tracker, but my recollection was that the 
group concluded it was not needed or out of scope.  I think it should be 
closed.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:50:58 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

#27 	RFC 4408: Should the ptr: mechanism and the %{p} macro be deprecated

This one is still open in the tracker.  It was addressed in the WG -01 
revision and no one raised questions about it, IIRC. I think it can be closed.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:52:12 -0400

> Here's a summary of the open issues.

#26 	RFC 4408: Should the syntax checking of SPF records be relaxed at all

This issue is still open in the tracker.  IIRC the group agreed not to make 
any changes due to this issue.  I believe it should be closed without further 
action.

Scott K

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jun 2012 20:23:34 -0000

>group concluded it was not needed or out of scope.  I think it should be 

The EAI RFCs are now published on the standards track, so it might be worth
a look.

For domains, there's the question of whether to allow UTF-8 domains, or to
require that all IDN domains be represented as A-lablels.  For any of the
macro stuff that looks at mailboxes, whether to allow UTF-8 mailboxes.

I don't feel strongly whether or not to address it now, although if
SPF continues to be useful, sooner or later it's going to have to work
with EAI addresses.

R's,
John

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:55:33 -0700

Hi Scott,
>any changes due to this issue.  I believe it should be closed without further

I only close a ticket if there is a message which documents the 
decision.  There were comments from John Levine about this issue ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00814.html ) 
and from you ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00809.html 
).  I don't see any thread about Issue #26 in the SPFBIS archives.  I 
don't have any justification to show if I am asked where the group 
agreed not to make any changes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:03:40 -0700

> SPF continues to be useful, sooner or later it's going to have to work
I'm inclined to go with A-labels, which we did with DKIM.

We should also consider any operational experience people have with SPF and
IDN domains.  Is any known?

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:06:35 -0700

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I only close a ticket if there is a message which documents the decision.
>  There were comments from John Levine about this issue (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00814.html ) and
> from you (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00809.html ).  I
> don't see any thread about Issue #26 in the SPFBIS archives.  I don't have
> any justification to show if I am asked where the group agreed not to make
> any changes.
>
>
I'm inclined to make no change.  In fact, if this isn't a known pain point,
I would even say that making the proposed change exceeds our charter.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:11:48 -0400

On Friday, June 29, 2012 01:55:33 PM S Moonesamy wrote:
> >any changes due to this issue.  I believe it should be closed without
> >further action.
> 

I think that's enough.  I think it works the other way around.  The charter is 
very clear that we are not doing a redesign here.  I think absent some 
agreement to change, it stays as is.  Given the issue got little comment and 
no traction, how do we get from a wait state to closed?

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:13:02 -0400

> IDN domains.  Is any known?

Not by me.  Being consistent with DKIM sounds like a good starting point.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:24:13 -0700

> no traction, how do we get from a wait state to closed?
I agree.  As I read the charter, the only way we could make this change is
if it has already been made and widely deployed.  Is there any evidence of
this?

If not, I think this one is dead as contrary to the charter.

-MSK

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Jun 2012 17:32:25 -0400

> I'm inclined to go with A-labels, which we did with DKIM.

That's perfectly reasonable, but doesn't deal with the mailboxes.  Since 
there's no ambiguity between UTF-8 and ASCII, allowing UTF-8 in mailbox 
fields should be strictly upward compatible.

> IDN domains.  Is any known?

No, but I'd be surprised if anything odd happened, since until people 
start deploying EAI, all of the domains in mail envelopes have to be 
A-labels which don't present any new challenges to SPF code.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:28:55 -0700

In a message dated March 7, Andrew Sullivan commented on the issue ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00812.html ) :

   "I don't know what the ADs will say about it, but the chairs have been
    clear that we will not rule out of scope issues that come up and that
    meet the charter.  A technical issue is a technical issue, and we'll
    deal with them as long as they're on-charter. There may, of course,
    also be issues that would not be on charter, but that could be the
    basis for future work."

Issue #26 was not opened for comments while the working group was 
discussing about the issues.  Even if an issue got little comment or 
no traction, it will only be closed once the working group has been 
given the opportunity to comment.  Once a conclusion has been 
reached, the ticket is closed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
SPFBIS WG co-chair

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:11:10 -0400

Was security issue #29 also resolved? Closed without discussion?

-- 
HLS

S Moonesamy wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01626.html ).   
> Alessandro Vesely commented on it ( 
> "extended status code The reference was also changed.  I'll leave this 
> one open in the tracker as there has ony been two comments ( 
> Issue #23 is about typos in the draft.  The fix is in -00.  I am marking 
> the issue as resolved.
> 
> subsection.  There were only two comments and a text change was proposed 
> ( http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01633.html ).  
> I'll leave this open.
> 
> Issue #7 is about downcasing result names.  Murray Kucherawy commented 
> on this ( 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01639.html ).  
> Barry Leiba mentioned that mixed-case invited confusion ( 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01649.html ).  
> I'll leave this issue open.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 
>

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:10:59 -0400

> reached, the ticket is closed.

It's out of scope.  Please close.

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:12:30 -0400

> Was security issue #29 also resolved? Closed without discussion?

It's not a security issue, but it's still open in the tracker.  The tracker is 
self service:

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/report/1

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:35:18 -0700

> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/report/1
Item #29 is tagged to be about the experiment document.  This is possibly
an error, because the experiment document doesn't touch on this topic.  If
it's not an error, the experiment document is now in the RFC Editor queue
having not dealt with the matter, so I imagine it should be closed.

On the other hand, if the chairs have ruled it as off-charter (inasmuch as
there was no evidence presented supporting it as being on-charter since
that posting in April), it should be closed for that reason.

-MSK

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:05:04 -0400

Its a security issue if the two possible outcomes are different and 
one is worst than the other, one that is directly related to security 
considerations.  Think about it or read the postings I made in the 
past I have no desire to repeat.

-- 
HLS

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:11:22 -0700

>This is still open in the tracker, but was fixed in a pre-WG draft.

I'll close this ticket (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00476.html ).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:14:04 -0700

>This issue is still open in the tracker, but it was fixed in one of 

I closed the ticket.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy