Re: [spfbis] 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]>]

At 04:55 21-08-2013, manning bill wrote:
>regarding adoption…  it would be interesting to 
>take a second snapshot from each of these servers in about six months
>to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs 
>observations that not all TXT == SPF).   In the 
>mean time, declare a suspension of
>last call to gauge if the presumption of failure 
>of the SPF RR merits this drastic action.

The IETF chartered the SPFBIS WG to deliver:

   (i)   A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment and its
         conclusions to the IESG for publication.

   (ii)  A standards track document defining SPF, based on RFC4408
         and as amended above, to the IESG for publication.

There is a message from the Responsible Area 
Director ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00331.html 
) and the SPFBIS Chairs ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00355.html 
) about (i).  The SPFBIS  WG was asked to make a 
good-faith effort and that is what the working group did.

The editor of RFC 6686 did a good job.  The IESG 
approved the publication of the draft.  The 
working group worked on its second deliverable 
(ii) after that.  There wasn't any concern about 
the TXT RR as the matter was considered as 
resolved in RFC 6686.  I asked DNSEXT about the 
SPF RRTYPE in the (IANA) DNS Parameters registry 
( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03412.html 
).  It generated long threads on several IETF 
mailing lists.  It was unusual to have that 
amount of comments after the end of a WGLC.

Suspending the Last Call for six months is a 
drastic action.  I would ask the Responsible Area 
Director to consider that if the SPFBIS WG did 
not make a good-faith effort or if there is an 
issue with the process that was followed.  My 
opinion is that the SPFBIS WG made a good-faith 
effort.  There are at least three Area Directors 
reading the SPFBIS mailing list.  They did not flag any process-related issue.

At 07:03 21-08-2013, Jelte Jansen wrote:
>Just wondering, could OARC's recent DITL data help? (perhaps if only to
>see whether another large-scale targeted effort is needed)

Yes.  Someone also has to do the work.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)