Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 01 March 2012 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 CBB0521E8363 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:54:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6kQHOIHVp50X for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:54:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0005821E8299 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAB320E40DA; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:53:36 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1330620816; bh=2CoEKXnrkWZNggGChx3MWh69IOGCjyvhRFozxgfCxgc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=Czrk01q6hkVgedDts/Iwqzfa0e2FOHp/Lk7za9QrkuvrpAcu3NTUAecO5JmWsSEMv KVgHOgAh4NxTJEcBZBYlw9NLZOMQL5XiSeacTHvLkS0mY09p7+63DN7gu+jptt5unQ NqIAVFc3kMYhZleG9XkBKTCh2UTkG6DdZToiXrRY=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0CED20E408F; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 11:53:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:53:35 -0500
Message-ID: <42925810.AtQu7N28Qf@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.7.3 (Linux/3.0.0-16-generic-pae; KDE/4.7.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120301064114.0a80f078@resistor.net>
References: <20120301004643.17274.83943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVDUmcLZh4J2SvV32kNxaQcPYr1+9S9q59Kd50F4hqWaOQ@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120301064114.0a80f078@resistor.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:54:54 -0000

On Thursday, March 01, 2012 07:53:48 AM SM wrote:
...
> At 06:22 01-03-2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >IESG.  It includes SPF specifics (although it doesn't require a normative
> >reference to RFC 4408, so there's no downref issue with it), so I think
> >that in the context of authentication failure reporting this is already
> >established
> >to be in scope.  All the current draft does is provide an optional
> >mechanism
> In the Last Call message issued by the IESG, it is mentioned that:
> 
>    "Note that this document has a downward normative reference: This
> document makes a normative reference to SPF (RFC4408), which is
> Experimental."
> 
> Is the downward normative reference in the draft incorrect?

No.  The downref is correct.  Downrefs are allowed, but have to be reviewed 
(AIUI).  I was saying that I think the downref is safe and appropriate in this 
instance because the parts of RFC 4408 that are relevant to this draft are 
stable and it would be very, very, very unlikely for them to change in SPFbis.

The "no downref issue" was related to draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-10, 
not this one.

Scott K