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> Tue, 12 June 2012 07:36 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 D1ED421F85AF; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.555, 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 3TRVgJSF572R; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC9621F850D; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so2903193eaa.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:36:38 -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=CDITGxRyHThtw7EmEr1FuE4AopLFoGb2pCk6HpEIz64=; b=W0f+dKzT/WiL25xdPjDjDRUFkuOp/LSJqfp4SxYE7Tn21b/Guclb2mQYWt3cpJWN3c bcSqSTJsrrYFqgMovk4dvGPxfSOeWMSaY6dveWEKsZFaUyZinp0HK9wfLuIuB6Miozh8 jOweCPKbuG6FcaY/lnhyi8XAYtlSG5sqSIHHrCKC116m5uK3lHos2R4MhoHDqBi+sfma luiX5uj7nP4htdbT2KyXIM7KLiR4zCckmMzVw3Gv8AkIGiM4LGMqYTft80EaLBFDNGw4 6awYoz79WHo6UMfRlbHg4UieCTkoQO4g0DKH3h9nK+Ww3mYuBY4tz1LmVgzV0xcg4kZ6 Nz6w==
Received: by 10.14.37.12 with SMTP id x12mr6523552eea.161.1339486597862; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (host-2-102-219-50.as13285.net. [2.102.219.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p41sm61059430eef.5.2012.06.12.00.36.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FD6F180.8010401@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:36:32 +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: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
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> <4FD36D42.2080308@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD36D42.2080308@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, spfbis@ietf.org, 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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:36:40 -0000

I've looked at the changes in the -10 version, and it's
much clearer to me, thanks. If I'm asked to review it again
it will be "Ready".

Regards
   Brian

On 2012-06-09 16:35, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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