Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,
At 23:03 01-12-2011, Paul Midgen wrote:
>I'm still relatively inexperienced in the standards process, so keep 
>that in mind when reading my comments.

If my comments are unclear, please let me know and I'll elaborate.

>One of SPFbis' efforts will be to publish data detailing current 
>operational characteristics of SPF & SenderID (the document Dave 
>Crocker mentioned), and said data will inform SPFbis. As has been 
>mentioned, it's not terribly interesting (to me, anyway) what 
>happens with RFCs 4406 & 4407.

draft-kitterman-4408bis will obsolete RFC 4408 and according to the 
proposed charter will be published as a Proposed Standard.

>Having now given draft-mehnle-spf-scope a first read, my hope that 
>what it essentially proposes (inclusion of some number of RFC5322 
>headers as authenticatable identities)

Yes.

>  finds its way into SPFbis, and that doing so is supported by 
> operational data. I've seen this to be true anecdotally, but want 
> it out there in published form with data from multiple receivers, 
> senders, etc. included in the analysis.

I prefer not to comment on this during the chartering discussion as 
it might end up being controversial.

At 23:05 01-12-2011, Paul Midgen wrote:
>Murray and I have had some discussion on this prior to starting 
>SPFbis, and the work is already in progress - though my contribution 
>to it won't be ready for some months, since I'm constrained by my 
>current ability to gather all the data I want.
>
>So - before we start editing and circulating documents, we should 
>first have a discussion on what all our thoughts/expectations are.

Good idea.  I am ok with whatever the consensus is for the "conclusions" draft.

This mailing list has been quiet which is unusual for a fora where 
SPF and Sender-ID is mentioned.  It's better to have the 
above-mentioned discussion after the working group is chartered as 
there will be a WG chair to deal with the controversies.

Regards,
-sm