Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Thu, 08 December 2005 22:23 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkUB2-0007wn-JC; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:23:48 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkUAx-0007sx-Li for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:23:46 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29375 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 17:22:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EkUB0-0007tF-2v for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:23:46 -0500
Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1EkU8a-0001Si-Qj for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:21:16 +0100
Received: from 1cust25.tnt9.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.140.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:21:16 +0100
Received: from nobody by 1cust25.tnt9.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:21:16 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:05:49 +0100
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <4398AE3D.512D@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <200512081104.09113.julian@mehnle.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust25.tnt9.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
The IESG decided: > while we have found merit in Julian Mehnle's technical > concerns, we will not change our decision to publish the > draft as an Experimental RFC without change to its technical > content. > The IESG did consider this conflict in its original > discussions, and that is one of the reasons why we crafted > the original IESG note to be included in these documents, > which highlights that there are concerns about using these > mechanisms in tandem. That's beside the point. Of course "consenting adults" can use "spf2.0/mfrom,pra", and that's semantically almost the same as "v=spf1" plus an identical "spf2.0/pra" policy. There are no technical issues with using these mechanisms in tandem for all senders explicitly wishing to participate in both experiments. The issue are senders _not_ wishing to participate in the later PRA experiment: "v=spf1" is semantically almost the same as "spf2.0/mfrom" _without_ "spf2.0/pra". That's what the v=spf1 spec. says with its "NOT RECOMMENDED" in chapter 2.4. It simply reflects what all v=spf1 specifications and implementations did since 2003. > It is quite clear that this conflict would not be acceptable > for a standards track specification. It's also unacceptale for a standards organization with a bare minimum of ethical and engineering principles. > document the different approaches as they were considered in > the MARID working group. The MARID WG came to the conclusion that PRA (spf2.0/pra) is in fact so different from SPF (v=spf1 or spf2.0/mfrom) that they should be clearly separated. That was the last MARID decision before this WG was dissolved unilaterally by Mr. Hardie. [he = Julian] > he requested that we modify draft-lyon-senderid-core to > address the conflict. Yes, backed by the SPF community and more than 200 signatures <http://old.openspf.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi>. This does not include several competent voices who don't like v=spf1, but still agree that (ab)using v=spf1 for PRA without the explicit consent of the v=spf1 participants is an ethical and technical nightmare. > his proposed modification amounted to a substantive technical > change. That's not the case. His proposal affects _four characters_ in a chapter about the alleged spf2.0 "backwards" compatibility: Instead of 'treat v=spf1 like spf2.0/mfrom,pra' this should be 'treat v=spf1 like spf2.0/mfrom'. > The IESG did not consider this an appropriate action to take > in this case. Well, you are wrong, and everybody can see it. If one draft says "SHOULD do x", and another draft says "SHOULD NOT do x", then something has to give. > Depending on the content of the record, this may mean that > Sender-ID heuristics would be applied incorrectly to a > message. This does _not_ depend on the content of the v=spf1 record. It depends on a PRA being identical to the MAIL FROM. Which isn't the case for a significant portion of all mails. > Participants publishing SPF experiment DNS records should > consider the advice given in section 3.4 of RFC XXXX > (draft-lyon-senderid-core) and may wish to publish both > v=spf1 and v=spf2.0 records to avoid the conflict. There's no such thing as "v=spf2.0 records". This "advice" is completely bogus, there are more than a million v=spf1 records, and it will take years to migrate this installed base to use the new SPF RR. For this migration period the best they can do is to publish both SPF and TXT records, "v=spf1" or "spf2.0". Asking the participants of the older "experiment" to publish four records instead of two won't fly, let alone anytime soon. Besides, since when favours the IESG "opt-out" for experiments with non-consenting participants ? > we hope that this augmented IESG note will address his > concerns. I seriously doubt it. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-0… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Ned Freed
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Andrew Newton
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Andrew Newton
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Andrew Newton
- RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Thomas Gal
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bruce Lilly
- Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to … C. M. Heard
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Scott W Brim
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Douglas Otis
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Dotzero
- RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Pekka Savola
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Dick St.Peters
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Dick St.Peters
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bob Braden
- Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational John Levine
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… John Levine
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational Frank Ellermann
- Individual submissions and Informational RFCs wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Sam Hartman
- Re: Individual submissions and Informational RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Individual submissions and Informational RFCs Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Individual submissions and Informational RFCs wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Sam Hartman
- Last call IETF experiments (was: Appeal ....) Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last call IETF experiments (was: Appeal ....) John C Klensin
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Keith Moore
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… william(at)elan.net
- SES or BATV (was: Publication of draft-lyon-sende… Frank Ellermann
- SES vs BATV Douglas Otis
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Sam Hartman
- Re: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Frank Ellermann
- Re: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in… Frank Ellermann