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.

At the absolute minimum, please refer to a numbered or dated version of 
draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope, otherwise its author(s) can easily change the 
scope of the WG.

In addition, draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope isn't even existing; I'm really 
not sure that's the way to charter a WG. Same for 
draft-kitterman-rfc4408bis.

If the above problems are sorted out, I also hope that the new WG can 
deal with EAI appropriately.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/11/14 14:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> As discussed today in the APPSAWG meeting.  Comments welcome.
>
> --- 8<  --- snip --- 8<  ---
>
> Working Group Name:
> 	SPF Update (SPFBIS)
>
> IETF Area:
> 	Applications Area
>
> Chair(s):
> 	TBD
>
> Applications Area Director(s):
> 	Pete Resnick<presnick@qualcomm.com>
> 	Peter Saint-Andre<stpeter@stpeter.im>
>
> Applications Area Advisor:
> 	Pete Resnick<presnick@qualcomm.com>
>
> Mailing Lists:
> 	General Discussion: spfbis@ietf.org
> 	To Subscribe:	    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 	Archive:	    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/
>
> Description of Working Group:
> 	The Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC4408) specifies the publication
> 	of a DNS record which states that a listed IP address is authorized
> 	to send mail on behalf of the listing domain name's owner.  SMTP
> 	servers extract the domain name in the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command for
> 	confirming this authorization.  The protocol has had Experimental
> 	status for some years and has become widely deployed.  This working
> 	group will revise the specification, based on deployment experience
> 	and listed errata, an will seek Standards Track status for the
> 	protocol.
>
> 	The MARID working group created two specifications for publication of
> 	email-sending authorization:  Sender-ID (RFFC4405, RFC4406 and RFC4407)
> 	and SPF (RFC4408), with both having Experimental status.  By using
> 	IP addresses, both protocols specify authorization in terms of path,
> 	though unlike SPF, Sender-ID uses domain names found in the header of
> 	the message rather than the envelope.
>
> 	The two protocols rely on the same policy mechanism, namely a
> 	specific TXT resource record in the DNS.  This creates a basic
>          ambiguity about the interpretation of any specific instance of the TXT
>          record.  Because of this, there were concerns about conflicts between
>          the two in concurrent operation.  The IESG Note added to each invited
> 	an expression of community consensus in the period following these
> 	publications.
>
> 	Both enjoyed initially large deployments.  Broad SPF use continues,
> 	and its linkage to the envelope -- rather than Sender-ID's linkage
> 	to identifiers in the message content -- has proven sufficient among
> 	operators.  This concludes the experiment.
>
> 	This working group will therefore refine the SPF specification based
> 	on deployment experience and listed errata, and will seek Standards
> 	Track status for the protocol.  Changes to the specification will be
> 	limited to the correction of errors, removal of unused features,
> 	addition of any enhancements that have already gained widespread
> 	support, and addition of clarifying language.
>
> 	The working group will also produce a document describing the
> 	course of the SPF/Sender-ID experiment (defined in the IESG note
> 	on the RFCs in question), bringing that experiment to a formal
> 	conclusion.
>
> 	Specifically out-of-scope for this working group:
>
> 	* Revisiting past technical arguments that were covered
> 	  in the MARID working group, except where review is reasonably
> 	  warranted based on operational experience.
>
> 	* Discussion of the merits of SPF.
>
> 	* Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF.
>
> 	* 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.
>
> 	The initial draft set:
> 		draft-kitterman-rfc4408bis
> 		draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope
>
> Goals and Milestones:
> 	MMM YYYY:	A standards track document defining SPF,
> 			based on RFC4408 and as amended above,
>   			to the IESG for publication.
>
> 	MMM YYYY:	A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment
> 			and its conclusions to the IESG for publication.
>
> 	MMM YYYY:	A standards track document creating the "scope"
> 			extension to the IESG for publication.
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>