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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba wrote:
>> A participant in another WG has expressed interest in republishing SPF
>> (RFC4408) on the standards track.  This clearly and historically falls into
>> the APPS realm.  The work is probably in need of a WG home, and with YAM
>> leaning toward spinning down, this is the next best place to ask.  I have
>> some doubts it would be accepted as sponsored individual submission nor is
>> it appropriate for the ISE, but I could be wrong.
>>     
>
> It absolutely can not be done in the Independent Stream -- that stream
> can't do Standards Tack documents.
>   
>> I doubt this warrants its own working group, but I could be wrong about that
>> too.  So far as I’m aware the only changes needed from that document are the
>> creation of an extensions registry, some minor editorial stuff, and some
>> kind of resolution of the IESG Statement that was added to it to address the
>> collision with Sender ID (RFC4406/7).
>>     
>
> I believe this absolutely needs its own WG, and the proponents should
> work on a draft charter.  The charter should be clear that it's aiming
> to move SPF to Standards Track, that it is specifically NOT addressing
> Sender-ID, and that any merging of Sender-ID into SPF is out of scope.
>  The charter should have explanatory text about the experiment having
> been done, the results being clear, and deployment being widespread.
> The WG wants, it should say, to document the experimental results and
> shift SPF onto Standards Track.
>   
Considering past history of SPF/Sender-ID, I would advise Apps AD not to 
take it as an AD-sponsored document. So +1 for the WG, if there is 
energy to do the work.
> Hatless Barry