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 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Doug,
At 21:55 11-09-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
>Recommended text is as follows:

Thanks for suggesting text.  I'll take this up with the SPFBIS WG 
after the (IESG) DISCUSSes have been addressed.

Here are some quick comments.  Section 4.6.4 was reviewed again in 
response to the DISCUSS from Barry Leiba.  I will take the new 
changes into consideration when making a suggestion to the SPFBIS WG 
about that part of the draft.  I'll also review the text proposed in 
the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg82402.html 
before making that suggestion.

There were also some text clarifications to Section 5 in response to 
comments from Barry Leiba.  I'll see whether the addition of the one 
sentence which you propose fits in.

Some text was proposed to address the "DNS message" issue in Section 
3.4 ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg04104.html 
).  I'll use your suggestion and some of the other suggestions to get 
this issue resolved.

It is my understanding that you consider the "macro" issue (Section 
11.5.3 in the text which was proposed) as a major one.  The argument 
in your message starts with IPv6 or DNSSEC not being in the purview 
of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.  It is followed by EDNS0 is used with 
DNSSEC, and there is a discussion about MTU after that.  The next 
paragraph starts with the argument that the SPF macro feature can be 
used for "attacks".  The proposed text then argues that SPF records 
containing macros are to be ignored to mitigate such an attack.  At 
the moment I do not know what I will suggest.  I welcome any new 
input from anyone who has not commented about the "macro" issue.

I suggest using the [e-mail] mailing list only for any 
follow-up about the above instead of copying the message to the [e-mail].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)