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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:22 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF
> 
> IMHO 0.01% SenderID vs. 16% SPF in a DNS survey published 2010 is now a
> not completely irrelevant result -- that SPF started earlier will never
> change, and at some point in time adoption has to mean something.
> 
> DKIM started after SenderID, and it is already far beyond this level in
> the same study.  It's not something that should be mentioned in an RFC,
> but it is a motivation to work on a refresh version covering all errata,
> and with updated references, e.g., RFC 5321/2 instead of RFC 2821/2.

Given the history, maybe this is a case where an implementation report, normally used to promote something to Draft Standard, would be especially helpful?

> The SPF modifier registry could be also started in a MARF RFC, starting
> a registry as soon as it *might* be used can be too early if it is in
> fact never updated later, starting it as soon as there is more than
> one RFC needing values in the same namespace could be a good plan. But for
> the SPF modifiers it would be clearer to start the registry in 4408bis,
> if that is possible, because the MARF use case are "special modifiers",
> not the place where readers would expect details of a general concept.

I think it would best appear here, but I don't have a problem doing it in the MARF extensions draft to which you are referring.