Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:36 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> NB: I tend to take Doug seriously, and feel he deserves more that "We
> ignored him before: it's safe to ignore him again."
>

I'm at a loss to understand how replying to his draft with a review of it
constitutes ignoring him.

Douglas Otis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On May 28, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Nixing macros based on non-use has already been debated at length,
> >> to the point of a low-level appeal, and it's been decided that
> >> they're staying.  There's no action for the WG here based on that
> >> argument.
>
>    I am not willing to advocate their removal, but I think they deserve
> to move a goodly way on the path to deprecation.
>

Could you please explain what procedural path you propose we follow to do
so?  You were, I believe, paying attention when their removal or even
deprecation was proposed, argued, ruled out-of-charter, appealed, and put
down.  I would think at that point that the topic was de facto no longer
valid for this WG.  So, short of appealing the charter itself (which I
would argue is far, far past the point of being a reasonable course of
action), we would only be re-covering a well beaten path destined for the
same result.


>
>    Nonetheless, they remain a path to magnification of DoS. IMHO, folks
> _will_ turn off SPF macro expansion when it becomes a common tactic for
> DoS. (It's particularly nasty in that the initial request is free: a
> simple TXT record in DNS for some quite unrelated domain can set off
> at least ten seemingly-random DNS queries.)
>
>    I quite agree it hasn't happened yet, and it doesn't seem likely to
> happen in the next year or two. Nonetheless, it's there for the taking,
> and it could become popular on rather short notice.
>

At best, you could propose text to add to the bis draft that discusses this
(if it's not already) and see if it can get working group consensus to stay
in.  It would've been nice to do this prior to WGLC or its completion, of
course, and it's up to the co-charis to decide whether to admit it all at
this point.

However, I suggest that rendering this entire portion of the protocol
"optional" will monkey with interoperability, so I would argue against such
a change.

-MSK