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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0AC21F96D1; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.201, 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 0eazeMl0Xvrk; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2304821F97AF; Thu, 23 May 2013 10:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.155.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4NH19tF023443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 May 2013 10:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1369328483; bh=f2P5Im/Ou+JfF1Hocd/xVp2gEMi6IPhKKMZPn6qwNkY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=QR/oNg8JfemcF/p+vLlpx4TS6MW89/guk7N/S97KnG2lU4rTUk8mx7nCbJn+dJneg prEoJm8g+N8NNs0ixKku5exwxyJODNOWICfoeWFzjseLnq2wfpJgf0eQMP/NRPi9WK 1UPYUpVnQMjrE94UgomphQ5e/v2T+0OMLOyfnei0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1369328483; i=@elandsys.com; bh=f2P5Im/Ou+JfF1Hocd/xVp2gEMi6IPhKKMZPn6qwNkY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=08CX6TUD0z2qwkfaYc70KJYz6AQzCkLkq+kXegVrxZuT15aS6cDuTDwnwCTaPfWzn deMJgFmh9V0fTpdCvz2pxMjFSiuDObUJPXi5ofUPZf8aQcduFOoNttQH3473V9ucUj Mp5I+uLAlfV8UIV1cpr2qI4frS/ekG7LqOk1qgCU=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130523095247.0dc5a520@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 10:01:02 -0700
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjoH77H9cRQseQF09rDLwjtViZW_tGp71v0-WaZujoYtA@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwjoH77H9cRQseQF09rDLwjtViZW_tGp71v0-WaZujoYtA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:09:34 -0000

Hi Phillip,
At 09:58 26-04-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>The document is clear and describes the SPF mechanism effectively. 
>The only quibble that I could find is that repeated mentions are 
>made of limiting the number of 'DNS queries' without specifying 
>whether these are individual queries or recursive. The count will 
>come out rather differently if looking up TXT/x.example.com counts 
>as one lookup or three. I think it is reasonably clear that this is 
>one but could not find an explicit statement to that effect.
>
>On the security side, the document addresses all the mail issues 
>that I can remember at this point and rather more besides.
>
>I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
>
>The document provides a clear enough warning to people configuring 
>SPF records as to the consequences of getting it wrong which is the 
>main concern. The filtering services will know their business well 
>enough to minimize false positives.
>
>Hopefully the email infrastructure will evolve over time towards 
>concentrating on the more policy friendly approaches and it will be 
>possible to simplify the mechanism at a future date.

There are two comments about the security directorate review of 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03723.html and 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03726.html

The SPFBIS WG does not plan to make any change to 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.  Please let me know if you consider that 
the security directorate review has not been addressed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)