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> Tue, 27 August 2013 17:28 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 6CD9811E8348 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 IrgEoCoaa3IZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:28:42 -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 EA69011E81CD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.139.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7RHS6NJ017540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1377624508; bh=aqoOdAUyQ6AgYyMYEcoa6zT2TSp/9bgtVNMQN/+lYD8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=P5q6sqzIvwEBCE5+eDkWwNYN7ws2lAEym2kB9hLWg+rC0YBBp/v+JP9nNjOU3NyU7 G1gIW34gzjAeEG9Hh7AEYjIR7EfcADr+8V9Z9Ug1Vc3hwlyka2Ry17kC97bQTxqf47 IGLDLJXedyRAnzuD1BbSaAyxJG9WuLLDdZDgkTwU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1377624508; i=@elandsys.com; bh=aqoOdAUyQ6AgYyMYEcoa6zT2TSp/9bgtVNMQN/+lYD8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=vQuWeUpvoiG5Jffw/t/sDiZ3pUfpY4OUdLGylDKrwDkCtbRENZd9sCJblyeIrXnxa 9GD41kHKE6stw2xyAF8OsQKwGLx8yL3kjy9kojFx/UPMk2yF8DHW86GGoD3LisuR7g Q9bFHXh2/KTNBPB/ioOLIng+MKQmem/k/FnBs1vI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130827090837.0d7b3e18@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:43:49 -0700
To: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
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: <330A924C-17DA-4082-92AD-FDB6EF09192A@hopcount.ca>
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>
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: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:28:44 -0000

Hi Joe,
At 08:59 27-08-2013, Joe Abley wrote:
>The consistent word for this in 1035 is simply "message". "DNS 
>Message" is in more common use today, I would say.
>
>The text you quoted from 1035 is most usefully interpreted as a 
>contraction of "messages sent over UDP"; "UDP message" really 
>doesn't have a well-understood meaning, and is easily conflated with 
>"UDP datagram" which does not have a size limitation of 512 bytes.

Thanks for explaining this.  Please note that I personally agree with 
what you wrote.

My understanding is that the text in Section 3.4 is trying to say DNS 
messages over UDP.  There was some discussion about that (see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03088.html 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03090.html 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03109.html ).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email