IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 28 August 2013 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B03811E8165 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 nElMjZIYX9l2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D94921E805A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.235.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7SCSNkW010829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1377692924; bh=tcf9LYZ6hLC8ezv4+PFwlAsJdddtrrEsBYHpLsuINB8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cW3e6XnpBtjZLYjYXYwoWtWeHfnhkWe2dbQn5oV8sHcOFi/fDG05leQFimCKa7WlU taIpGpGv4KX5rou0DeJy1vW6mU6urOnVIuFkzFrvNj+dxLtBwMyXiDdPs+VM4Sz8VE ITX1cwb37FyTW7JQor+TIFL+2iJJ+7IrU9UNHI18=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1377692924; i=@elandsys.com; bh=tcf9LYZ6hLC8ezv4+PFwlAsJdddtrrEsBYHpLsuINB8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Cpz4hGXtbAgqZhPi9zxB4K6JcFwU0S4c5dnwFWfgzqAA76hET+43To7rh+x+S31kV jmFnpCmhxPCznBpGx7RvHVA7+MrZqs6Jrtyfe8Y9v8dEuvD6PeEA8MGMDq5Tha8C6K ilwEUuoxK9x6wKOp48pNKJNKoIj+8OVBx8FIbevk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130828044224.06ee3980@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 05:24:48 -0700
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, Jelte Jansen <jelte.jansen@sidn.nl>, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, mansaxel@besserwisser.org, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130827090837.0d7b3e18@elandnews.com>
References: <9884B9CD-0ED3-4D89-A100-58D05EA4BC98@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130823234808.0b7cfed0@elandnews.com> <C5D75C5C-D468-4104-A478-0A055F43AED9@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130826182352.0cac3298@elandnews.com> <330A924C-17DA-4082-92AD-FDB6EF09192A@hopcount.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20130827090837.0d7b3e18@elandnews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:28:55 -0000

Hello,

It's difficult, some might say impossible, to get agreement on 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.  I would like to ask each of you, and 
anyone else, to provide your opinion about the following:

RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records:

   1.  The data in TXT is unstructured and subject to 
misinterpretation by other
       applications.

   2.  Wildcard issues.

   3.  Size issues.

The draft addresses (3) by discussing size considerations, and 
tangentially addresses (1) in Section 3.4.

I would like to ask everyone not to turn this into a debate by not 
discussing about the opinion stated by someone else.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email