Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 06:32 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 A1E3021F8762 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 TqmTjrG7d-YS for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACED21F875E for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so4552203lbb.31 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uAGT0b1FsO45eqyGDMhg5DbjQpTNCVNNAscLay7VHeM=; b=wkhheOThKMDdiVdvgkLcK8xdgcntk1Ee7/Qd3NPDYqiD/iPjIM2f3msBdjOI7dKx+O 0PpKrqxqNVWZQUrS5nr/Bltq6L7NE3T5ZRRGQVKcFxXQl0M7Bgvt5Uvgjhhha2PdKqv8 cN9BItG69YuecjwKDGDeBwulIF87G8Pd2mkaZPImgvC9nTP3q5oH5AuTA9//XPrdykOW FP04IRFvFMh/vBmK4GBb9PEsdJPqlzFbyA2DkefQJmpJEz7lAr88gHq2OrNMHcd0U9xh 5TM6b/U3+Opj3S8ScPWK2G+O9Wrfb4Uw4BLgHVsEjcFG+AgLKqanDRGbgfUgBsHg1vKs X8Tg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.124.180 with SMTP id mj20mr1121432lab.43.1342161168849; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.89.3 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7553255.LjjZa8jCz8@scott-latitude-e6320>
References: <20120712022051.60587.qmail@joyce.lan> <2786082.683g7oVmD0@scott-latitude-e6320> <CAL0qLwb+6p-dvz5abG84UxZ_e80DEda8P+4dvYiupoFRb9nAHw@mail.gmail.com> <7553255.LjjZa8jCz8@scott-latitude-e6320>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:32:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYY7ZQ0WYsQ9PKOXD7PYTq_Tr=iperYLRUsUX9+XoLmbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0434bfdeb3590f04c4b03f10"
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:32:15 -0000
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>wrote: > We gain nothing from dropping it and we break a small number of existing > records. > I don't agree that we gain nothing from dropping it. We gain simplicity. Perhaps the value of simplicity in a Proposed Standard is being underestimated. > > It seems a bit odd that if we learned that as a lesson of the experiment, > we > didn't think important enough to mention in draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment. > Why would use of SPF macros be germane to a document whose function is to compare adoption rates of SPF versus Sender ID, and not their specific components? As it happens, the data collection we did for that effort includes something that's interesting to this one. I don't think that's odd at all. Because there's no compelling reason to remove it. But there is. > Did any of these precedents involve working groups where the charter said > only > unused features could be removed? If not, I don't think they are relevant. > Yes, all of them, since it's normal IETF procedure when upgrading the status of something on the standards track. You might want to review RFC6410 Section 2.2, which covers advancement from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard (Draft Standard has been eliminated since DKIM was updated), as it includes as one of the criteria: (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly increase implementation complexity. Macros are both relatively unused and increase complexity. I'm trudging through Section 8 in my review now. The only "outs" here to me are the facts that (a) we're moving from Experimental to Proposed Standard, which RFC6410 doesn't cover (although I believe it's still useful to apply these criteria as good practice), and (b) the definition of "unused" in this context is fuzzy. I believe we have a stronger Proposed Standard by removing this or anything else that yields no operational or community benefit. Section 8 is not a trivial piece of work for an implementer to follow and get right. No, it's not impossible, but I don't agree that it's at all straightforward either. > > 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. > > I don't think any of those apply here. > > I don't agree. The statistics speak clearly to me that macros are an unused feature, and "removal of unused features" appears in the very charter text you cited. I've said my piece here. Others will have to weigh in. However, I ask that the co-chairs open this as a new tracker item as a separate issue from #14. -MSK
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Douglas Otis
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Commerco WebMaster
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Commerco WebMaster
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Leslie
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI John Leslie
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] SPF and EAI Hector Santos
- [spfbis] Issue #27 (was: SPF and EAI) S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Dave Crocker
- Re: [spfbis] Deprecated Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Dotzero
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros S Moonesamy
- [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Scott Kitterman
- [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Kurt Andersen
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item S Moonesamy
- Re: [spfbis] why get rid of local part macros Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item S Moonesamy
- [spfbis] Wizards, was PTR vs %p - Consider it as … Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Derek Diget
- Re: [spfbis] Wizards, was PTR vs %p - Consider it… Hector Santos
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Stuart Gathman
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item John Levine
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item Scott Kitterman
- Re: [spfbis] PTR vs %p - Consider it as a BCP item John Levine