Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

Commerco WebMaster <WebMaster@Commerco.Net> Mon, 23 April 2012 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <WebMaster@Commerco.Net>
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 59D1421F863D for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
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 wmUTAKL58UPs for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MS1.MailSys.Net (MS1.MailSys.Net [66.135.47.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6D121F858F for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=mailsys; d=Commerco.Net; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-fromip:x-fromcountry; b=AnSCDGmXmBCN+OcPigBksUfZYpQFcvMVJ2vy3ovHXvabquJzbm9UNL3yDMWpJvsrtmYWKxAYeatJemVVTKI5NvbjzRKBJ14+gTTpXXNz5wjy46YnIHoEsJPBuHGu+BGFveF+t2gmkLx3nDvUkbo/VzFzw7/BVhgG59krMpQeYDI=
Received: from [71.216.84.59] by MS1.MailSys.Net (ArGoSoft Mail Server .NET v.1.0.8.3) with ESMTP (EHLO [10.240.241.49]) for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:10:45 +0000
Message-ID: <4F959B1F.6020007@Commerco.Net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:10:39 -0600
From: Commerco WebMaster <WebMaster@Commerco.Net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <3365685.ptXhF5PY8S@scott-latitude-e6320> <20120423145947.GH55520@mail.yitter.info> <63583111.FeGGmhBaS4@scott-latitude-e6320> <CAC4RtVCnFXT=goe0tgJjq1CsOV_TRK+XSR5GDu8DjGtVN7b8KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVCnFXT=goe0tgJjq1CsOV_TRK+XSR5GDu8DjGtVN7b8KA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-FromIP: 71.216.84.59
X-FromCountry: US
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 18:10:55 -0000

On 4/23/2012 10:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>  I'm arguing that the current text remain.
>
> Scott is right that because what's there has rough consensus, he does
> not need to establish consensus to leave it there.
>
> That said, I think the current text ill-serves the document, so let me
> try again.  How about this, which I think does not attempt to attribute
> anything but the Experimental requirement to the old IESG:
>
> OLD
>     Due to the absence of consensus behind one or the other, and because
>     Sender-ID supported use of the same policy statement defined by SPF,
>     the IESG at the time was concerned that an implementation of
>     Sender-ID might erroneously apply that statement to a message and,
>     depending on selected recipient actions, could improperly interfere
>     with message delivery.  As a result, the IESG required the
>     publication of all of these documents as Experimental, and requested
>     that the community observe deployment and operation of the protocols
>     over a period of two years from the date of publication in order to
>     determine a reasonable path forward.
>
> NEW
>     Consensus did not clearly support one protocol over the other, and
>     there was significant concern that the two would conflict in some
>     significant operational situations, interfering with message delivery.
>     The IESG required the publication of all of these documents as
>     Experimental, and requested that the community observe deployment
>     and operation of the protocols over a period of two years from the date
>     of publication in order to determine a reasonable path forward.
>
> Does that work?  I think it says what it needs to say without trying to
> either blame anyone or get into historical details that are not
> necessary in this document.
>
> Barry
>

New looks cleaner.  Would it be possible (and does it make sense) to add 
something like -

"Measurement data gathered for both the Sender-ID and SPF experiments 
indicate SPF adoption levels in the community as the preferred protocol, 
thus offering the reasonable path forward."

- to the end of the paragraph?

Alan M.