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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Douglas Otis submitted draft-otis-spfbis-macros-nixed-00 [1] as WGLC
> comments about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14.  Could the SPFBIS WG please
> read the draft-otis-spfbis-macros-nixed-00 and comment about it?
>
>
I have reviewed the draft, as requested.  My responses:

Nixing macros based on non-use has already been debated at length, to the
point of a low-level appeal, and it's been decided that they're staying.
There's no action for the WG here based on that argument.

Beyond that, I disagree that macros "diminish" SPF's utility in any way;
their mere presence in the protocol doesn't render it less useful, as one
may simply not use them and still get useful results.

I would argue that DMARC, which makes use of SPF in a specific way, should
not influence SPF itself at this point as DMARC has no particular status
with the IETF yet.

The dropping of type 99 RRTYPE support was made for more reasons than just
"sparse use", so I don't find that part of Doug's arguments compelling.  I
think we reached consensus on that debate long ago, and it's been beaten to
death recently once again on the main IETF list.

The local-part macro attack has been discussed to death.  There's no new
information presented here that I can see.

Saying RFC6686 "failed to provide a breakdown on macro use" is to imply
that it should have.  Analysis of macro use was not part of the goal set of
that document, so it's strange to identify this as a failure.  However, I
still have those data available should there be some demonstrated purpose
for mining the data further.  Or, Doug can do his own survey and see what
he finds.

The document mentions use of macros given the advent of EAI, but I believe
the current spfbis document already deals with this in the same way DKIM
did.  Someone more expert in EAI than I am might want to confirm we've done
our due diligence there.

Overall, I don't think this draft introduces any new material such that the
WG needs to revisit anything since WGLC closed.

-MSK