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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 17:25 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 207E621F984C; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, 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 ZS0lfGetaLsE; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:25:39 -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 6CF7C21F9832; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.234.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3QHPHoC017907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1366997131; bh=T0/tmdL/jbVwndZ5x3yxecmWKIGXhkyzpLa+ZF8c7LA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=b9mVwHoP9BAGFGQJsbx9e/JKYZbE26jO2IjPr22DuLCAYo2S5s/2+Ns8CGZefIVeN kWuj2NHnhsa8YT7XE1SXCc2zk140n2Xj05MiD1dBuwvfFvYDxbdBEy+/LIDsm04nL5 9nl+tESEvRUfwAo4u03jS4nNOpXkkCys9cnB9rI0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1366997131; i=@elandsys.com; bh=T0/tmdL/jbVwndZ5x3yxecmWKIGXhkyzpLa+ZF8c7LA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=TUIfTDRBPDH/WPh4T/2p+D1Mv4u1Y1fqXMWoAd651eLcNKtBRc5Rzhuel8MQvLnWH n45xhxTjU4OeX6yX5fwCenCIZDcKWiw0QWJ3Bj1+PifdvZchN7s4aRSV2wfeqjSHk4 OlDj3FK8fGyQosjwBKE51QbB1nFSnaUacBlQH200=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130426101142.0c89d698@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:16:35 -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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:09:59 -0700
Cc: 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: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:25:40 -0000

Hi Phillip,
At 09:58 26-04-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
>IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
>security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
>these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
>
>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/<http://x.example.com>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.

Thanks for the review.  I'll wait for the WGLC comments to be 
addressed before getting back to you about the quibble mentioned above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)