Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

+1, looks good to me.

--
HLS

Pete Resnick wrote:
> All,
> 
> I have made some updates to the charter based on feedback during IESG 
> review. If I can sneak it onto the Thursday telechat this week, I might, 
> but the IESG might be none too pleased for me to put it on so late, so 
> it may wait two more weeks. We'll see.
> 
> Please review the below and see if there is anything that makes your 
> head explode.
> 
> pr
> 
> ---
> 
> Working Group Name:
>     SPF Update (SPFBIS)
> 
> IETF Area:
>     Applications Area
> 
> Chair(s):
>     TBD
> 
> Applications Area Director(s):
>     Pete Resnick<[e-mail]>
>     Peter Saint-Andre<[e-mail]>
> 
> Applications Area Advisor:
>     Pete Resnick<[e-mail]>
> 
> Mailing Lists:
>     General Discussion:[e-mail]
>     To Subscribe:    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>     Archive:    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/
> 
> Description of Working Group:
>     The Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC4408) specifies the publication
>     of a DNS record which states that a listed IP address is authorized
>     to send mail on behalf of the listing domain name's owner.  SMTP
>     servers extract the domain name in the SMTP "MAIL FROM" or "HELO"
>     command for confirming this authorization.  The protocol has had
>     Experimental status for some years and has become widely deployed.
>     This working group will summarize the result of the experiment and
>     revise the specification, based on deployment experience and listed
>     errata, and will seek Standards Track status for the protocol.
> 
>     The MARID working group considered two specifications for
>     publication of email-sending authorization:  Sender-ID, which
>     eventually became RFC4405, RFC4406 and RFC4407, and SPF, which
>     eventually became RFC4408, all in the end published under
>     Experimental status.  By using IP addresses, both protocols specify
>     authorization in terms of path, though unlike SPF, Sender-ID uses
>     domain names found in the header of the message rather than the
>     envelope.
> 
>     The two protocols rely on the same policy publication mechanism,
>     namely a specific TXT resource record in the DNS.  This creates a
>     basic ambiguity about the interpretation of any specific instance of
>     the TXT record.  Because of this, there were concerns about
>     conflicts between the two in concurrent operation.  The IESG note
>     prepended to RFC 4405 through RFC 4408 defined an experiment with
>     SPF and Sender-ID, and invited an expression of community consensus
>     in the period following the publication of those specifications.
> 
>     Both technologies initially enjoyed widespread deployment.  Since
>     that time, broad SPF use has continued, whereas use of Sender-ID has
>     slackened.  Furthermore, SPF's linkage to the envelope (as opposed
>     to Sender-ID's linkage to identifiers in the message content) has
>     proven sufficient among operators.
> 
>     Formation of the SPF Update Working Group is predicated on three
>     assumptions:
> 
>     1. The SPF/Sender-ID experiment has concluded.
> 
>     2. SPF has been a qualified success, warranting further development.
> 
>     3. Sender-ID has had less success, and no further development is 
> justified.
> 
>     The working group will produce a document describing the course of
>     the SPF/Sender-ID experiment, thus bringing that experiment to a
>     formal conclusion.  The group will complete additional work on SPF
>     (described below), but will not complete additional work on the
>     Sender-ID specification.
> 
>     Changes to the SPF specification will be limited to the correction
>     of errors, removal of unused features, addition of any enhancements
>     that have already gained widespread support, and addition of
>     clarifying language.
> 
>     Specifically out-of-scope for this working group:
> 
>     * Revisiting past technical arguments where consensus was reached in
>       the MARID working group, except where review is reasonably
>       warranted based on operational experience.
> 
>     * Discussion of the merits of SPF.
> 
>     * Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF.
> 
>     * Extensions to the SPF protocols.
> 
>     * Removal of existing features that are in current use.
> 
>     Discussion of extensions to the SPF protocols or removal of
>     existing features shall only be discussed after completion of
>     current charter items in anticipation of rechartering the working
>     group.
> 
>     An initial draft of an updated SPF specification document is
>     draft-kitterman-4408bis. The working group may choose to use this
>     document as a basis for their specification.
> 
> Goals and Milestones:
>     Aug 2012:    A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment
>             and its conclusions to the IESG for publication.
> 
>     Dec 2012:    A standards track document defining SPF,
>             based on RFC4408 and as amended above,
>              to the IESG for publication.
> 

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com