IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Sat, 09 June 2012 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C757421F884C; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b32DEjHAnBs6; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0644B21F884E; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1339255782; x=1370791782; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=o7j3t5LDSOiaYc9iTC/8yz+Pbz6zrvUWIw1cqPBgF14=; b=XWomJ3W392N+AWtyot9XguUmnpfgILoURAsK/t63TFCGr9C11BzX7tj6 ZU5p3cy2kNsxyyeWtMkABjjX+IrCiMZ5I4dSrcL0rq4pzqlP3hnvv8jJJ 2uusO1XWizBgWa/dK88WeREG1hJhmwvuqXsx+tOLvLc4nx7MqKQH23GTC w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6736"; a="197130514"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2012 08:29:38 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,741,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="263793785"
Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 09 Jun 2012 08:29:38 -0700
Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Sat, 9 Jun 2012 08:29:37 -0700
Message-ID: <4FD36BDE.5010502@qualcomm.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 10:29:34 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <4FCF32B5.7010102@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120606215706.0aa1d6c0@elandnews.com> <4FD05F2D.8010200@isdg.net> <4FD0AC66.50602@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD0AC66.50602@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 15:29:43 -0000

Brian,

On 6/7/12 8:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> S Moonesamy wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>> Brian Carpenter wrote:
>>>> Also, RFC4406 states that "Sending domains MAY publish either or both
>>>> formats" (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect
>>>> to see nine rows in the results table:
>>>>
>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 only
>>>> SPF RR only, spf2.0 only
>>>> SPF RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 only
>>>> TXT RR only, spf2.0 only
>>>> TXT RR only, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 only
>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf2.0 only
>>>> SPF and TXT RRs, spf1 and spf2.0
>>>>          
>>> Pete suggests having two tables for each survey: (a) a comparison of
>>> RRTYPEs, and (b) a comparison of SPF vs. SIDF independent of RRTYPE.
>>> Would that be sufficient?
>>>        
> I am looking for clear presentation of the observed data, nothing more,
> as I do whenever I read a data-based document. As my review stated,
> I have no problem with the conclusions drawn in the draft.
>    

I'm afraid you got distracted by Hector's question and didn't answer 
SM's. Please do.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email