Re: [spfbis] 4408bis update

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 05:47:23 PM Hector Santos wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:02:47PM -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> >> It would of been nice if the editor would of posted for the WG list
> >> to first review the substantial changes he intended to make or add
> > 
> > Why?  This is an Internet Draft.  This is the format we have for
> > reviewing and commenting.  Sending it to the list in advance is not
> > something we want to encourage.
> 
> Because of past experience, and I stress only an isolated experience,
> not my general experience.  From quick reading so far, section 9.0 was
> written without any consensus and now it (and changes) will be much
> harder to overcome, especially if it originates from me,
> unfortunately. Look, too more unprofessional ignorance is going on and
> if thats ok by the group, so be it.  But this is not a HOBBY for me.
> The output of this group directly impacts in my product and how my
> customers will use SPF and I will have my input or the new document
> will not get adopted by me, which means changes not implemented,
> largely ignored. Status quo, picking and choosing what goods vs bad
> and quite frankly, I am tired of this trend for the RFC documents.  I
> had to bring up a more general issue, but its part of what you see
> here.  Sorry.
> 
> Section 9.0 is linked to other existing sections which required a much
> wider engineering review than what was done and I strongly feel there
> is actual empirical information that is not reflected. No problem if
> it wasn't so subjective, was more generic protocol material and more
> reflective of actual practice out there. i.e. some of the stuff we
> should of extracted during the experiment report, unfortunately, we
> focused on other things.  The issues were/are already on the table
> (documented) and I don't think they are un-addressable.

Section 9 is not new.  It's in RFC 4408 and every draft that follows.  There 
are three major changes for -04 in section 9:

9.1.1. DNS Resource Considerations: Rewritten/expanded.  This is Alessandro 
Vesely's text that he provided me offline and I posted here almost a month ago 
for review.

9.1.3. Bounces:  New subsection provided by Franck Martin that was previously 
published on this list.  What's in the draft is almost exactly what he posted.

9.3. Receivers:  This is new.  I wrote the first two subsections in response to 
comments by Murray Kucherawy.  He provided the text (on this list) for the 
last subsection.

So most of the change in the section you are complaining about was previously 
posted here.  Keep in mind that all of section 9 is non-normative.  If you've 
got actual suggestions to make, please make them.  Vague assertions that it 
could be better don't help me get this done.

Scott K