Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 14 November 2011 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FEE611E80BD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:58:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUkkQx8nEPKs for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A047111E80B8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAE6vquh031697 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:57:54 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 73af_273a_f8b281ea_0e8d_11e1_aa25_001d096c566a; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:57:52 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:38218) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156CFBE> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:57:52 +0900
Message-ID: <4EC0BBEE.4050201@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:57:50 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
References: <201111140546.pAE5k1aW035215@medusa.blackops.org> <4EC0B043.2060907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15012@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15012@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:58:04 -0000

On 2011/11/14 15:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:08 PM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
>>
>> I'm somewhat surprised that there is a long charter text, but it ends
>> essentially with "what we'll do is in draft foo". I think the "what
>> we'll do" is the core of the charter, and shouldn't be just a
>> reference.
>
> It was brought to my attention that you might believe the working group's scope is defined in the "-scope" draft.  It's not; that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but doesn't contain any scope definition for the proposed working group.

Yes indeed. I read:

	* Extensions to SPF other than the one specified in the "scope"
	  document.  The working group will re-charter to process other
	  specific proposed extensions as they are identified.

So I though that what's in the scope document is in scope, and other 
things are out of scope, so the scope document defines the WG scope.

If that's not the case, I propose to rewrite the above to:

	* Extensions to SPF other than the "scope" extension (see
           draft-...)  The working group will re-charter to process other
	  specific proposed extensions as they are identified.

Actually, the fact that the "scope" extension is in-scope should be 
mentioned before the list of scope exclusions, it shouldn't be included 
as a side-effect of the exclusions.

Regards,    Martin.