IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Fri, 12 August 2011 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 C4EA121F8A51 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.568
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 o-4fgym1qtmY for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DFE21F8A4D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF3CA1ECB41D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:14:59 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:14:57 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110812131456.GB3724@shinkuro.com>
References: <201108092337.39408.scott@kitterman.com> <CAHhFybp3K8HQU7gmDqpQmv+HLiSy+J4EoEb=gTCwt3wZi6jgWA@mail.gmail.com> <20110811213626.GU95640@shinkuro.com> <201108111807.05405.scott@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201108111807.05405.scott@kitterman.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:14:26 -0000

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 06:07:04PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> I feel strongly that the 4408bis effort we are discussing now should be a 
> minimal/backwards compatible_unless_it_is_impossible update.  Once that is 
> complete there is a backlog of incompatible design ideas for simplifying and 
> improving SPF.  In that context I think moving to Type SPF only makes a lot of 
> sense and should be considered.  I don't want to get that mixed in with the 
> current effort.

I don't have a strong feeling about this, but why is that a better
strategy?  If the goal is to move SPF off the EXPERIMENTAL track, then
surely the time to make changes to the protocol is when you move it
and determine the extent to which the experiment worked or didn't?
Cf. the current effort in the EAI WG.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email