Subject: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:46:01 -0800 (PST)

As discussed today in the APPSAWG meeting.  Comments welcome.

--- 8< --- snip --- 8< ---

Working Group Name:
	SPF Update (SPFBIS)

IETF Area:
	Applications Area

Chair(s):
	TBD

Applications Area Director(s):
	Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
	Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Advisor:
	Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
	General Discussion: [email-masked]
	To Subscribe:	    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
	Archive:	    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/

Description of Working Group:
	The Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC4408) specifies the publication
	of a DNS record which states that a listed IP address is authorized
	to send mail on behalf of the listing domain name's owner.  SMTP
	servers extract the domain name in the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command for
	confirming this authorization.  The protocol has had Experimental
	status for some years and has become widely deployed.  This working
	group will revise the specification, based on deployment experience
	and listed errata, an will seek Standards Track status for the
	protocol.

	The MARID working group created two specifications for publication of 
	email-sending authorization:  Sender-ID (RFFC4405, RFC4406 and RFC4407)
	and SPF (RFC4408), with both having Experimental status.  By using
	IP addresses, both protocols specify authorization in terms of path,
	though unlike SPF, Sender-ID uses domain names found in the header of
	the message rather than the envelope.

	The two protocols rely on the same policy mechanism, namely a
	specific TXT resource record in the DNS.  This creates a basic 
        ambiguity about the interpretation of any specific instance of the TXT 
        record.  Because of this, there were concerns about conflicts between 
        the two in concurrent operation.  The IESG Note added to each invited
	an expression of community consensus in the period following these
	publications.

	Both enjoyed initially large deployments.  Broad SPF use continues,
	and its linkage to the envelope -- rather than Sender-ID's linkage
	to identifiers in the message content -- has proven sufficient among
	operators.  This concludes the experiment.

	This working group will therefore refine the SPF specification based
	on deployment experience and listed errata, and will seek Standards
	Track status for the protocol.  Changes to the 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.

	The working group will also produce a document describing the
	course of the SPF/Sender-ID experiment (defined in the IESG note
	on the RFCs in question), bringing that experiment to a formal
	conclusion.

	Specifically out-of-scope for this working group:

	* Revisiting past technical arguments that were covered
	  in the MARID working group, except where review is reasonably
	  warranted based on operational experience.

	* Discussion of the merits of SPF.

	* Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF.

	* Extensions to SPF other than the one specified in the "scope"
	  document.  The working group will re-charter to process other
	  specific proposed extensions as they are identified.

	The initial draft set:
		draft-kitterman-rfc4408bis
		draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope

Goals and Milestones:
	MMM YYYY:	A standards track document defining SPF,
			based on RFC4408 and as amended above,
 			to the IESG for publication.

	MMM YYYY:	A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment
			and its conclusions to the IESG for publication.

	MMM YYYY:	A standards track document creating the "scope"
			extension to the IESG for publication.

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:08:03 +0900

I'm somewhat surprised that there is a long charter text, but it ends 
essentially with "what we'll do is in draft foo". I think the "what 
we'll do" is the core of the charter, and shouldn't be just a reference.

At the absolute minimum, please refer to a numbered or dated version of 
draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope, otherwise its author(s) can easily change the 
scope of the WG.

In addition, draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope isn't even existing; I'm really 
not sure that's the way to charter a WG. Same for 
draft-kitterman-rfc4408bis.

If the above problems are sorted out, I also hope that the new WG can 
deal with EAI appropriately.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/11/14 14:46, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 	Pete Resnick<[email-masked]>
> 	Peter Saint-Andre<[email-masked]>
>
> 	Pete Resnick<[email-masked]>
>
> Mailing Lists:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:18:42 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:08 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
> 

Hi Martin,

Can you explain how you got that?  I thought the charter was pretty clear about what is intended, rather than pointing off to what's in some draft.  In essence it says "Here's what we plan to do", followed by "Here's the draft where we've started doing it."

> draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope, otherwise its author(s) can easily change
> the scope of the WG.
> 
> not sure that's the way to charter a WG. Same for draft-kitterman-
> rfc4408bis.

Yes, it was ready only after the temporary embargo on postings was established.  He'll get it posted very soon now that it's lifted.  I sent him a reminder.

The other one is http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kitterman-4408bis/, so the name is slightly wrong; easily fixed.

I haven't ever had the request to name a specific version as a starting point in a charter before, which is why it wasn't done here.

> deal with EAI appropriately.

That is indeed a consideration; see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ellermann-spf-eai/.  The group could take this on as well, though the scope won't quite be so tight at first if it does.  I'm fine either way.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:31:15 -0800

> we'll do" is the core of the charter, and shouldn't be just a

It was brought to my attention that you might believe the working group's scope is defined in the "-scope" draft.  It's not; that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but doesn't contain any scope definition for the proposed working group.

-MSK

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:57:50 +0900

> It was brought to my attention that you might believe the working group's scope is defined in the "-scope" draft.  It's not; that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but doesn't c…

Yes indeed. I read:

So I though that what's in the scope document is in scope, and other 
things are out of scope, so the scope document defines the WG scope.

If that's not the case, I propose to rewrite the above to:

	* Extensions to SPF other than the "scope" extension (see
           draft-...)  The working group will re-charter to process other
	  specific proposed extensions as they are identified.

Actually, the fact that the "scope" extension is in-scope should be 
mentioned before the list of scope exclusions, it shouldn't be included 
as a side-effect of the exclusions.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:05:10 -0800

> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:58 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> [...]

Thanks; I've made your changes in the working copy.

-MSK

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:09:29 -0500

> mentioned before the list of scope exclusions, it shouldn't be included as a
> side-effect of the exclusions.

I have this image of a bunch of Vikings in a Monty Python sketch, all
sitting around chanting, "Scope, scope, scope, scope, scope, scope,
scope, scope...."

Barry