Re: [secdir] [spfbis] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Doug,
At 11:58 23-05-2013, Douglas Otis wrote:
>Greater clarity would have been achieved by separating transactions 
>involving the SPF checkhost process (spfch-transactions) which may 
>then generate some number of recursive dns server transactions 
>(rdns-transactions).
>
>A transaction made at the spfch level will result in some number of 
>transactions at the rdns level, which could then be described as 
>representing some number of separate DNS queries.
>
>Confusion has been caused by conflating checkhost and recursive DNS 
>transactions with that of non-recursive DNS which may involve dozens 
>of unique queries to resolve any particular resource.  This is bad 
>and is a continuing source of confusion.

What I noted among other things in the review was "the only quibble" 
and "it is reasonably clear".

>A practical means to simplify SPF's impact on a receiver's DNS is to 
>first ignore SPF records containing macro expressions.  This happens 
>and this may explain the nearly 100% lack of macro use.  They then 
>limit the number of SPF resource records and MX mechanisms and 
>ignore the PTR mechanism.  Appreciate what receivers consider a 
>reasonable demand on their resources that offers cache-able results.

I don't see any relation between the security directorate review ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03679.html ) 
to the above (quoted paragraph).  If the security directorate 
reviewer is of the opinion that it is related to his review I will 
ask the SPFBIS to comment about the matter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)