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

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Mon, 14 November 2011 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AF411E820A for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:08:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.59
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W4vsagQcPuSf for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F5F11E820F for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAE684G4029797 for <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:08:04 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 73a6_1798_0392f3d0_0e87_11e1_aa25_001d096c566a; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:08:04 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([]:59603) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156CF71> for <> from <>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:08:03 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:08:03 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:08:11 -0000

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 

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<>
> 	Peter Saint-Andre<>
> Applications Area Advisor:
> 	Pete Resnick<>
> Mailing Lists:
> 	General Discussion:
> 	To Subscribe:
> 	Archive:
> 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