IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Thu, 11 August 2011 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 D9AA021F8C00 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.476, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 J2+GRbWXV-pI for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC1921F8BF4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:59:32 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:59:31 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
Thread-Index: AcxYUDVnyE5J+hIaQoKZLTC5t9uoswAAAz2Q
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F13512DF6CD@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <AcxV+CxT9WxP2wTLTNWpQ3LXOor+nw==> <201108092337.39408.scott@kitterman.com> <4E4405F3.90101@dcrocker.net> <201108111357.54938.scott@kitterman.com>
In-Reply-To: <201108111357.54938.scott@kitterman.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
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: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:58:58 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:58 AM
> To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
> 
> My intent is to have an appendix in the draft (that would be removed before
> final publication) to describe changes so it's easy to determine what's
> different from 4408 (and when the time comes, previous revisions).

That's a BCP for these sorts of things, I've found.  For RFC4871bis, a lot of text changed, but very little was protocol-related.  It was important to have that summary in the document and also to have the output of "rfcdiff" comparing them available for perusal.

> I am, of course, open to feedback on this approach.

WFM so far.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status