IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 09 June 2012 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DF221F864C; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.691
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ZNjF-s186ncE; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4431C21F864D; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so2076392eek.31 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BuPPQWkfJPYWwxSkDyhNvHzqblzX2oQVensQL4tJ6pE=; b=LjGaUh8UJ1N1jwfHiufT0j6lLikf+YZSjNBCKd92uY4tp2Sdr/UvR2c+zMgzUTamWM dTKAggtswNPQap1V80naRzzOJeacBuPZ+UjBjc0+699B56JOj5TrBiqtk99+piHJ9ZHy +kQiyxHuoAu3a83Fgb/ld3WqYSLUHfJm+x28m9q+tMod6mnl3e8czpHkc4YAJCY0nHVW eVvZiQMjHoBM9VltxM/pkoWyQkVWS9EO1sDezvEZfjd3M1JXhynwfqTd0FNDlmb3zTaa UVc3jJnUSnL64pJQRPjFkkpsakpFsdUA0YMzTlooj1oO8AHCi1ERr/YKNDEiAkn1AeZ7 H4Bg==
Received: by 10.14.127.130 with SMTP id d2mr4989554eei.82.1339256133424; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (host-2-101-189-72.as13285.net. [2.101.189.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q53sm33294846eef.8.2012.06.09.08.35.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FD36D42.2080308@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 16:35:30 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
References: <4FCF32B5.7010102@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120606215706.0aa1d6c0@elandnews.com> <4FD05F2D.8010200@isdg.net> <4FD0AC66.50602@gmail.com> <4FD36BDE.5010502@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD36BDE.5010502@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:35:35 -0000

Hi Pete,

On 2012-06-09 16:29, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> On 6/7/12 8:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>> S Moonesamy wrote:
>>>
>>>     
>>>>> Brian Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> Also, RFC4406 states that "Sending domains MAY publish either or both
>>>>> formats" (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect
>>>>> to see nine rows in the results table:
>>>>>
>>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 only
>>>>> SPF RR only, spf2.0 only
>>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 only
>>>>> TXT RR only, spf2.0 only
>>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 only
>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf2.0 only
>>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>>          
>>>> Pete suggests having two tables for each survey: (a) a comparison of
>>>> RRTYPEs, and (b) a comparison of SPF vs. SIDF independent of RRTYPE.
>>>> Would that be sufficient?
>>>>        
>> I am looking for clear presentation of the observed data, nothing more,
>> as I do whenever I read a data-based document. As my review stated,
>> I have no problem with the conclusions drawn in the draft.
>>    
> 
> I'm afraid you got distracted by Hector's question and didn't answer
> SM's. Please do.

Sorry - yes, I think those two tables would be fine.

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email