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
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 29 August 2013 16:31 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 2BAC211E8123 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 1-SdlVE2nQiC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83ECF11E8122 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VF58C-000Hxd-PU; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:31:36 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:31:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
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
Message-ID: <33BAD063A63D81764705AC33@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <521E0759.7090504@dcrocker.net>
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> <6.2.5.6.2.20130827090837.0d7b3e18@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130828044224.06ee3980@resistor.net> <521E0759.7090504@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
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, 29 Aug 2013 16:31:51 -0000
--On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 07:21 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: >> RFC 5507 primarily raises three concerns about TXT records: > > RFC 5507 is irrelevant to consideration of the SPFbis draft. > > Really. > > RFC 5507 concerns approaches to design. However the SPFbis > draft is not designing a new capability. It is documenting a > mechanism that has existed for quite a long time, is very > widely deployed, and has become an essential part of Internet > Mail's operational infrastructure that works to counter abuse. >... Dave. I may be violating my promise to myself to stay out of SPF-specific issues, but this does not seem to me to be an SPF-specific issue. I suggest to you that the notions of IETF change control and consensus of the IETF community are very important to the integrity of how the IETF does things. The question of where and how the IETF adds value comes in there too. If some group --whether an IETF WG or some external committee or body-- comes to the IETF and says "we have this protocol, it is well-tested and well-deployed, and we think the community would benefit from the IETF publishing its description" that is great, we publish as Informational RFC (or the ISE does), and everyone is happy. If that group can get IETF community consensus for the idea that the spec should get a gold star, someone writes an Applicability Statement that points to the other document and says "Recommended", we push any quibbles about downrefs out of the way, and we move on. However, it seems to me that, for anything that is proposed to be a normal standards track document, the community necessarily ought to be able to take at least one whack at it on IETF LC. That "one whack" principle suggests that one cannot say "this was developed and deployed elsewhere and is being published as Experimental" (which is what, IIR, was one thing that happened in the discussion of 4408) and then say "now the design quality of SPF is not a relevant consideration because it has been considered elsewhere and widely deployed". If the IETF doesn't get a chance to evaluate design quality and even, if appropriate, to consider the tradeoffs between letting a possibly-odious specification be standardized and causing a fork between deployed-SPF and IETF-SPF, then the IETF's statements about what its standards mean become meaningless (at least in this particular type of case). Now I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, as you nearly did later in your note, that SPF-as-documented-in-4408bis is sufficiently deployed and would be sufficiently hard to change that the community should swallow its design preferences and standardize the thing. One can debate that position, but it is at least a reasonable position to take. Modulo some quibbles, it probably the position I'd take at this point if I were willing to take a position, but it is different from saying "can't discuss the design choices". Things would also be very different if the present question involved updating or replacing an existing Proposed Standard. If design decisions were made in that earlier version (and that went through IETF LC and got consensus), I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say "the IETF community looked at that before and it is now too late". You've done that before, I've done it before, and I don't think anyone who isn't prepared to explain why, substantively and in terms of deployment, it isn't too late should be able to object. But, in the absence of demonstrated and documented IETF consensus --independent of WG consensus, implementation consensus, deployment consensus, silent majority consensus, or any other type of claim about broader community consensus-- I don't think one can exclude a discussion of a specification's relationship to various design considerations, if only because "that may be deployed but the IETF should not endorse it in that form by standardizing it" or even "if the community that is advocating this won't allow design issues to be discussed, then there is no IETF value-added and the IETF should decline to standardize on that basis" have got to be possible IETF community responses. > To consider RFC 5507 with respect to SPFbis is to treat the > current draft as a matter of new work, which it isn't. No, it is to treat the current draft as a matter of work that the IETF is being asked to standardize for the first time... which, as far as I can tell, it is. I think those distinctions about standardization (including the value-added and change control ones) and what can reasonably be raised on IETF LC are important to the IETF, even for those who agree with you (entirely or in part) about what should happen with this particular specification at this particular point. YMMD. best, john
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John R Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- SPF TYPE support Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… HLS
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: SPF TYPE support Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… David Conrad
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John Levine
- Re: SPF TYPE support S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support Ted Lemon
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: SPF TYPE support Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… David Conrad
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Randy Bush
- Re: SPF TYPE support Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… David Conrad
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draf… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dotzero
- Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draf… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] prefixed names, was Last Call: <draf… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] SPF TYPE support S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… David Conrad
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Eliot Lear
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Eliot Lear
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… manning bill
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Ted Lemon
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] there is no transitiion, was Last Ca… John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] there is no transitiion, was Last Ca… Ted Lemon
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John Leslie
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Dave Crocker
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Mark Andrews
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Barry Leiba
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Mark Andrews
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… David Conrad
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Måns Nilsson
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Scott Brim
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Thomas Narten
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Pete Resnick
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John Levine
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Barry Leiba
- RE: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… l.wood
- The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude res… Dave Crocker
- RE: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… l.wood
- RE: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… Dave Cridland
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Visibility of shepherd writeup Carsten Bormann
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John Levine
- Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… Scott Brim
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… S Moonesamy
- Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… Dave Crocker
- Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Se… Douglas Otis
- Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… Hector Santos
- Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… S Moonesamy
- Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-s… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John R Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… John R Levine
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Jelte Jansen
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Overloaded TXT harmful (was" Re: [spfbis] Last Ca… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Joe Abley
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bi… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Patrik Fältström
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Scott Kitterman
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… John C Klensin
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Dan Schlitt
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… John Levine
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… David Conrad
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… S Moonesamy
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt>… Douglas Otis
- Macro Expansion (was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfb… S Moonesamy
- Re: Macro Expansion (was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-… Douglas Otis
- Re: Macro Expansion Pete Resnick