Subject: [spfbis] IETF85 SPFBIS minutes - Version 0.2

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:20:21 -0800

Hello,

Here are extended notes as minutes for IETF85 SPFBIS meeting.  I'll 
be submitting for the proceedings tomorrow if there aren't any objections.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
SPFBIS WG co-chair

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:32:38 -0500

There are a couple of points that I noticed change to first person:

> Scott Kitterman commented on Tim's point about the new people trying to
> figure out how to publish SPF records is an excellent one.  It kind of
> convinced me that there is more of a new audience than I had anticipated
> before.

...

> Scott Kitterman (via Jabber) mentioned that he is willing to concede the
> point now (and I wasn't before).

I think these should be changed to fit in better with the rest of the document:

> Scott Kitterman commented on Tim's point about the new people trying to
> figure out how to publish SPF recordsis an excellent one.  It kind of
> convinced him that there is more of a new audience than he had anticipated
> before.

...

> Scott Kitterman (via Jabber) mentioned that he is willing to concede the
> point now (and wasn't before).

The rest looks good.

Scott K

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:07:11 -0800

Hi Scott,
>There are a couple of points that I noticed change to first person:

Thanks, I missed those.

> > convinced him that there is more of a new audience than he had anticipated

I merged the two paragraph as suggested above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:55:40 +0100

On Fri 07/Dec/2012 00:20:21 +0100 S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
> Here are extended notes as minutes for IETF85 SPFBIS meeting.  I'll be
> submitting for the proceedings tomorrow if there aren't any objections.

I'd propose a few changes, if you think any of them can make the
document better.
--- IETF85-SPFBIS-minutes.txt	Fri Dec 07 10:40:18 2012
+++ IETF85-SPFBIS-minutes-nits.txt	Fri Dec 07 12:51:49 2012
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
 and bashed the agenda.
 
 Andrew Sullivan, as SPFBIS WG Chair, explained that the working group was
-having the meeting to discussed the proposal for reorganization of
+having the meeting to discuss the proposal for reorganization of
 draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-08.  He explained that the proposal seemed to have
 split the working group.  A summary of the SPFBIS discussions about the
 proposal is available at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02962.html
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
      through the IESG.
 
  (c) There was some concerns about some reorganizations in the original
-     RFC
+     RFC.
 
 The counter-arguments are:
 
@@ -88,17 +88,18 @@
 
 Scott Kitterman (attending remotely) would like to make sure that the working
 group is done with all reorganization questions and does not get derailed
-again.  He mentioned that the SPF is still there and willing to help people
-out.  He pointed out that Murray's draft also did some changes which was not
-just organizational.  Murray Kucherawy agreed with Scott Kitterman and said
-that they have had a discussion about the matter.
+again.  He mentioned that the SPF community is smaller but is still there and
+willing to help people out.  He pointed out that Murray's draft also did some
+changes which was not just organizational.  Murray Kucherawy agreed with Scott
+Kitterman and said that they have had a discussion about the matter.
 
 Dave Crocker thought that it was worth distinguishing between new implementers
 and new operators.  He doesn't think that the document will be relevant to
 existing folks.  He suggested moving the text around and snapshot it as an I-D
 so that it is in the record and then go and improve the language.  He said
-that the comments about policy and mechanisms are standard examples of how
-the document may be confusing to the new consumers.
+that thigns like conflating policy with mechanisms are standard examples of how
+the document may be confusing to average new readers:  Structural clarity seems
+to make an enormous difference to that.
 
 Scott Kitterman commented that the working group agrees on structural changes
 and can check the details of textual changes later.
@@ -109,14 +110,14 @@
 students look up.  That is the primary audience in his opinion.  He does not
 think that there is a risk of accidental changes as many people are paying
 attention to the draft now.  The way to avoid that is to rely on reviewing
-on catching an mistakes.  The Chair commented that it would be useful to point
+to catch any mistakes.  The Chair commented that it would be useful to point
 if there are any parts in the existing draft that would be problematic.
-It would then be possible to prioritize hich parts of the reorganized document
+It would then be possible to prioritize which parts of the reorganized document
 is really important.  Tim Draegen listed when does the HELO identifier come
 into play as an example.
 
 Dave Crocker relayed a comment from Kurt Andersen about a +1 for restructuring
-based on Tim Draegon's position statement re. educational usage.
+based on Tim Draegon's position statement related to educational usage.
 
 Scott Kitterman commented on Tim's point about the new people trying to figure
 out how to publish SPF records is an excellent one.  It kind of convinced me that
@@ -127,7 +128,7 @@
 return a trinary result; the second audience is people sending mail and wanting
 to create correct SPF records; a third audience is people taking that trinary
 result and configure their mail servers to do something.  The problem with the
-current draft is advice to their three groups are mixed together.  He would
+current draft is advice to those three groups are mixed together.  He would
 like to separate the algorithmic part from the heuristics part which is
 basically about what to do with the result.  The Chair asked whether there is
 still work to be done in respect to the reorganization.  John Levine replied
@@ -147,8 +148,9 @@
 going to do, so we can focus on getting whatever we are going to do done?  The
 Chair stated that he would like the working group to come to agreement on which
 way it would like to go.  Alessandro Vesely replied that he would like to see
-the document split in two.  He mentioned that the original document pushes
-concepts without saying why and how.
+the document split in two, even if that is more difficult as it requires to
+interpret concepts that the original document pushes without saying why and
+how.
 
 Murray Kucherawy mentioned that the reorganization makes it possible to split
 the document but he does not advocate either way.
@@ -157,8 +159,8 @@
 document the way a normal RFC reads and that it would be easier for
 somebody he brings on board his team to understand and discuss about the
 document.  Kurt Andersen (via Jabber) said that unless it would help get
-through the approval process, I would advocate reorg without split. John Kelly
-considered the audience as being new implementers .  Risk of backward
+through the approval process, I would advocate reorg without split.  John
+Kelly considered the audience as being new implementers.  Risk of backward
 incompatible changes do exist but he does not see a risk of backward
 incompatibility.  He agreed with Chris about the reorganization.  He said that
 he was 49 split versus 51 not split.  He is okay with whatever helps the
@@ -194,11 +196,14 @@
 any subsequent changes would be changes the working group did intentionally.
 
 Pete Resnick commented on the IESG having to review the iSCSI draft which was
-a 300 page monstrosity.  Having the diff really made a different in that case.
+a 300 page monstrosity.  Having the diff, taken after reshuffling paragraphs of
+the original RFC so that they matched, really made a difference in that case.
 The working group is not in that situation.  He stated that it is more
 important for the working group to convince itself that all things are good
 instead of being concerned about a violation in the SPFBIS charter which
-restricts changes that can be made to the document.
+restricts changes that can be made to the document.  The Chair agreed that
+there is a value in documenting the changes, as the WG is chartered to not
+alter the specification and might be asked to prove that it actually didn't.
 
 John Levine commented that he is okay with not splitting the document.
 
@@ -233,9 +238,9 @@
 people being opposed to splitting the document.  The answer is not to
 split the document.
 
-Alessandro Vesely commented that there is no specification for receiver
-behavior.  Murray Kucherawy commented that the idea of a second document
-was: here is what you do with a "pass", here is what we think you are
+Alessandro Vesely commented that an AS for receiver behavior should be
+experimental, currently.  Murray Kucherawy commented that the idea of a second
+document was: here is what you do with a "pass", here is what we think you are
 supposed to do with a "fail".  He mentioned that there was now obvious
 resistance to that and he didn't want to get into all the arguments.
 
@@ -259,7 +264,7 @@
 
 Pete Resnick, as Responsible Area Director, asked to put the question to the
 mailing list and ask people to state their objections if they are in favor of
-a split.  Dave Crocker commented that it was unncessary.
+a split.  Dave Crocker commented that it is unnecessary.
 
 The Chair, in reply to a comment from Scott Kitterman, commented that the
 plan is to send a note to the mailing list that outlines the intermediate

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 07:22:48 -0800

Hi Alessandro,
>I'd propose a few changes, if you think any of them can make the

Thanks, I applied all your changes with one or two minor edits.

I am attaching version 0.3.  I'll upload this version by the end of 
the day (UTC).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy