Re: [spfbis] Call for adoption: draft-kitterman-4408bis

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Mon 11/Jun/2012 18:07:40 +0200 Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 
> Now that the document concluding the SPF experiment is well on its way
> to publication, it is time for the WG to turn its attention to our
> other chartered work item: a standards-track document for SPF.  Note
> that an IPR disclosure ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1698/ ) has
> been filed for RFC 4408.

Is this because there /has/ to be an IPR?  (Otherwise, I don't
understand why that patent would concern SPF, given that the
referenced IPR 434 was related to Sender ID only.)

> We would like the working group to consider adopting
> draft-kitterman-4408bis as the basis for such a specification.  As the
> charter explicitly mentions that draft as a possible basis for work,
> it is the presumptive candidate for adoption.

I'd like to note explicitly that, except for some minor changes, that
I-D matches the current RFC 4408.  I have nothing against adoption,
but the proposed I-D is nowhere near WGLC and there are many issues
that need to be addressed.

To mention a nit, I would s/E-Mail/email/ as per RFC Editor style
guide http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/terms-online.txt

As for the experimental status, the IESG note mentions "there are
serious open issues", while our document seems to aim at closing the
experiment after considering the "concerns about using them in tandem"
only.

> If you have any objections against adoption of the draft please send
> them to the mailing list before 18 June.  Please include an outline of
> what the alternative draft will be like or an alternative draft.  If
> there is such an objection, we will wait one additional week for that
> alternative draft to materialize before taking a decision.
> 
> The date, 18 June, gives us one month prior to the date for WG agendas
> to be posted for Vancouver.  We have requested a 30 minute meeting
> slot in Vancouver.  If by 18 July we do not seem to have any need for
> further discussion in Vancouver, we will cede the time.

I hope that does not imply that there is nothing to be discussed about
SPF, and look forward to an open-minded meeting.

Regards