Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 19D0A21F8521; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.454
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145,
 BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 MtDf+ZAGASyT;
 Mon, 20 May 2013 00:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
 D358821F8539; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id y10so147608wgg.28 for
 <multiple recipients>; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
 :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=K1CmhgR3+bvA9Xh/jX/rjRpsv+IkUEroBD+5PtQo/LM=;
 b=ecwP5Z12luTuTbnkFVcO+PA8EjxpLs7v+lmBb0IEpYk/Du0pEXZxj5coBKgrY89aG3
 mOy0m0+/5dvTvSfnkAmDqUUDrxRK2gvKycAXD+yGaus2QEtRxRBw2M3UQ28noixq6jZV
 AE2ZIpivaV9XM3jfL+FRkCYnjioGIY3liBhXmNzp3T+8/lEJA9esBOabu4yoH4ySMLz5
 lqoDhIFQZMxy3p/JG/UVZT+N60vtQTT3nuWlUnEtjVkUhyv9HfXnmcYNt9IKy03CjEzZ
 vir68mpdFnjprzbotCzqZDUGrqj8CzN6VsBNVP/UzYHFTU1u4fOS5uBAJLmdHZw381FG GrYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.210.242 with SMTP id mx18mr11069821wic.14.1369036139666;
 Mon, 20 May 2013 00:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.14.34 with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 00:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9E5D5870D2E1345B7ABA6971@cyrus.local>
References: <9E5D5870D2E1345B7ABA6971@cyrus.local>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 00:48:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwau0JFy_ipdf_PzJoyxUUcStuudAbNbVL1cT-jdaVuhgA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c262e8ca24bb04dd21909d
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14.txt
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: Mon, 20 May 2013 07:49:05 -0000

--001a11c262e8ca24bb04dd21909d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> wrote:

> Nits:
>         Section 2.6 and Section 8 appear to duplicate a lot of similar
> information. Please consider trimming down Section 2.6 and have it refer to
> Section 8 for full details.
>
>
>
Hi Cyrus,

There is a little duplication in there that I'm attempting to help the
editor to reduce to a minimum.  It's intentional, however, because the WG
concluded it was necessary to separate the list of possible SPF results
from any kind of normative statements (or even inference) about what an
operator should do with one of those results.  Thus, 2.6 lists protocol
elements, and 8 is basically some operational discussion.

I may also say the above in a more condensed form just so it's clear why
the apparent duplication exists.

Thanks for the review,

-MSK

--001a11c262e8ca24bb04dd21909d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo <span dir=3D"=
ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:cyrus@daboo.name" target=3D"_blank">cyrus@daboo.=
name</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Nits:<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Section 2.6 and Section 8 appear to duplicate a lot of simi=
lar information. Please consider trimming down Section 2.6 and have it refe=
r to Section 8 for full details.<br>
<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Cyrus,<br><br></div>There is a =
little duplication in there that I&#39;m attempting to help the editor to r=
educe to a minimum.=A0 It&#39;s intentional, however, because the WG conclu=
ded it was necessary to separate the list of possible SPF results from any =
kind of normative statements (or even inference) about what an operator sho=
uld do with one of those results.=A0 Thus, 2.6 lists protocol elements, and=
 8 is basically some operational discussion.<br>
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">I may also say the above in a more con=
densed form just so it&#39;s clear why the apparent duplication exists.<br>=
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Thanks for the review,<br><br></div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote">
-MSK<br></div></div></div>

--001a11c262e8ca24bb04dd21909d--