IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Tue, 29 May 2012 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 A1B2C11E80D0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, 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 wHyo2zFKuTjn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E855311E80F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.26]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id Fv4P1j0010as01C01v4PPc; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:23 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=dpJZ+ic4 c=1 sm=1 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:17 a=LvckAehuu68A:10 a=Nd0-PibDfu8A:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=b6nfwRhkAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=GDThVHyN_hZ64527sycA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=QMZKka45TBd+hNGtXG2bIg==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas902.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::54de:dc60:5f3e:334%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 29 May 2012 12:04:23 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>, IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC
Thread-Topic: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC
Thread-Index: AQHNOz1INsCQPVSMfUCCwx/dWdUXtZbhI4RA
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:04:22 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392813826C@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120526124417.28073.97552.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120526124417.28073.97552.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.20.2.121]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1338318263; bh=lJxMbq64HAARGGVhcr5jpNpHAi04yj9jfFotQ4pgl8c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=un6Kp4Up/me6fZRMgrmqthml9Ahzj79fi6g/Q16DODxeWDGxvj643UgDm4MBe7ULQ ETP0TcQhVViZv7yrOcdJPz90dPiI7mD4vTXJt/eBs3r0EnuY0OVqkfyQ6dF1vuHr4p GASlGVtaTmTbqVJbqhJ+Z21/OmeN39J3PMm1WLZE=
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, 29 May 2012 19:04:25 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:44 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
> Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments'
>   <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

In my quest to ensure I'm never done with a document I'm editing, I reviewed this myself and found a couple of things I plan to change after Last Call completes.  They are either grammar corrections or removal of redundant text, and aren't substantive, so I don't expect they're controversial.  So just to head off other reviewers' comments:

1) The Introduction's first and second paragraph contain substantially identical text.  This will be trimmed.

2) In the Analysis section, I believe conclusions 4 and 6 are redundant.  I propose to remove 6.

3) There are a few places where I should've used "that" instead of "which".

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email