Re: [spfbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-02.txt

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Fri, 29 June 2012 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.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 B1D4121F8658 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
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=[AWL=0.000, 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 xD2NWANTl06S for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E4C21F8657 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A93A20E40FC; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1340996870; bh=SAiucNxRrUjftfxwOZ/hztd2XQezA0eTlrpZO8LRWoM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=bDGXPBYksHDNp++ghuxW1qfs2GyzNFogsBn3L6FLj35oTjX1q6E1xeBXAd5OG9ggn S8Y7lYbDAMzEXm2c+msVMPHX3/LjB6BPZpEIQf/PZhOxiROke4D9eHq1FfhQF2lHtM FSnmLD2MrK+KN+BCuTKQJQPDd6yEThkDlCgJI5gs=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C1D220E4081; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:07:49 -0400
Message-ID: <1610254.tmmhToiaLs@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.4 (Linux/3.2.0-26-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20120629190443.9297.40140.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120629190443.9297.40140.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-02.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: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:07:57 -0000

On Friday, June 29, 2012 12:04:43 PM internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the SPF Update Working Group of
> the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use
> of Domains in Email, Version 1 Author(s)       : Scott Kitterman
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-02.txt
>         Pages           : 56
>         Date            : 2012-06-29

Here's the revision log additions for this version:

	      Refer to RFC6647 to describe greylisting instead of trying to	
 	      describe it directly.	
 		
 	      Updated informative references to the current versions.	
 		
 	      Added definition for deprecated since there are questions.	
 		
 	      Start to rework section 9 with some RFC5598 terms.	
 		
 	      Added mention of RFC 6552 feedback reports in section 9.	
 		
 	      Added draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment as an informational reference.	
 		
 	      Initial draft of wording to deprecate Type SPF.	
 		
 	      Try and clarify informational nature of RFC3696

In particular, the changes for Type 99/SPF deprecation and the changes to 
section 9 to modernize it a bit and use terminology from the email 
architecture document should be reviewed.

Have a nice weekend.

Scott K