IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review

Stuart D Gathman <stuart@gathman.org> Wed, 01 February 2012 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=SmceD=AL==stuart@gathman.org>
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 9A99411E814E for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:45:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 D+egCAa1dS-D for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:45:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bmsi.com (www.bmsi.com [IPv6:2001:4830:1659:911::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4AF11E811D for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdg.bmsi.com (sdg.bmsi.com [192.168.9.34] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.bmsi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q11Hj888008183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:45:09 -0500
Message-ID: <4F297A50.1000708@gathman.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:45:52 -0500
From: Stuart D Gathman <stuart@gathman.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <4F28DBB7.5070101@qualcomm.com> <4F292787.5040109@dcrocker.net> <18eefd51-d3d1-4db6-92bb-5ebf37cbe516@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <18eefd51-d3d1-4db6-92bb-5ebf37cbe516@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Updated charter - final review
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: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:46:47 -0000

Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on 02/01/2012 07:08 AM, Scott 
Kitterman would write:
>
> What additions are being proposed and considered?
>
> This clause broadens the scope significantly.
> FWIW, I'm not aware of anything that would currently meet that criteria and the only thing that might in the time frame we're discussing is the SPF failure  feedback report going on in MARF.
>
> If this language lets us transition the SPF modifier registry into 4408bis, then it's probably useful.
>
Since 4408 already reserves unknown modifiers for extensions, there is 
no need to mention specific extensions, except perhaps to reference the 
IANA registry for such extensions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email