From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Mon Nov 28 15:16:39 2011 Return-Path: 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 ACC1F1F0C5E for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 udS1WD-iKDbA for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030461F0C4A for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by eear51 with SMTP id r51so837884eea.31 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=wQrYcd+mtsBMn4w06oEnNWq2Vp/zL0cnjmvZ8Wgg038=; b=kYE4XaztVahovnxOwWb8KA+z2l2SpIzW+rDgxxbXPeWkfOtNyvjOLqn9ATP5RhPy0h O0s9w0oBi6++ZwHiibcCljpD78IRNXqi5ZIj6ZP87/H7N8bUD+MV5oF303/QDehHN7s1 0wd+M4+qVFQB6Cc6XrTyO6hIZD1zvzzOOcOZU= Received: by 10.227.203.131 with SMTP id fi3mr25777521wbb.17.1322522195148; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:16:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.255.70 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:15:54 -0800 (PST) From: Frank Ellermann Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: To: spfbis@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [spfbis] yam X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:16:39 -0000 Maybe we can start with something simple, update all obviously obsolete references, s/282/532/g etc. -Frank From msk@cloudmark.com Mon Nov 28 15:37:56 2011 Return-Path: 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 A212821F8C7F for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:37:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WdYasDYJmHSJ for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0838421F8C3D for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:37:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:37:51 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "spfbis@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:37:50 -0800 Thread-Topic: [spfbis] yam Thread-Index: AcyuI838NIWKY8T3R3SKhlhz4Pz63wAAtMWQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [spfbis] yam X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 23:37:56 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Frank Ellermann > Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 3:16 PM > To: spfbis@ietf.org > Subject: [spfbis] yam >=20 > >=20 > Maybe we can start with something simple, update all obviously obsolete > references, s/282/532/g etc. Yup. That's one of the two starting documents. Stuff like that can be don= e once the WG is rolling and we have the tools to start tracking issues. K= eep that one in your pocket. :-) From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Mon Nov 28 16:31:13 2011 Return-Path: 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 5603111E80BA for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:31:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nuNyYeD3LGck for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7DF11E8097 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:31:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenl2 with SMTP id l2so104307yen.31 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:31:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3QXeUIv9RBIgR9F6BA3E7j4ZJt20oULBKjD6eRRFOO8=; b=PPG9Sn4HvjvxfmHRDkIsHY3qLK8kVqirKx3LQGxYYKLZ6p3PPFCxemFgDSIFr9TeIS WZdVIbjhuMc3DiZ+4AVaB1oTG2OE40a/SWF7I7OJgUO8CI4CwgU2GZlcHorSGXA1ZRpN YNejC9xoZGAY6ud/mGqFOMmxOVoSgQ9mpbS64= Received: by 10.68.51.135 with SMTP id k7mr58886900pbo.72.1322526672119; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:31:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.11.10 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:30:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Frank Ellermann Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 01:30:31 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spfbis] yam X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:31:13 -0000 On 29 November 2011 00:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Yup. =A0That's one of the two starting documents. =A0Stuff like that can = be done > once the WG is rolling and we have the tools to start tracking issues. = =A0Keep > that one in your pocket. =A0:-) Now why is it that I think finishing 4408bis will be far easier than creati= ng a WG charter permitting to do it in the first place? -Frank From sm@resistor.net Tue Nov 29 17:01:14 2011 Return-Path: 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 7976D11E8085 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:01:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 gG711J5-b5R1 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:01:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E5D21F84B6 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:01:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pAU10w1T020273; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:01:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1322614864; bh=gOfN8WnvSgSui83rUeMQW7lkyplh90lHQFym5GMvLWo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=eXoDK94mcxskwf1Et74/W+7NUIUMzzek0OQMdV9wgjEnqhm8lttOJLljLlzR97D0I mfIMO+7PDRG74T9fKq8NdDME8pdjJd3Lzj+YWoX+aTm7f9+Bsa/vgK7TE8mD2nxH/X I5od68jGAT1wI2X+KcZ7yWjp60cZMazWwEwkJMDc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1322614864; bh=gOfN8WnvSgSui83rUeMQW7lkyplh90lHQFym5GMvLWo=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=poZjD8IEabhZGDyoSLlRtof6DDno2onrkG/nlxZ6RNj5fQZ5WaTs7MAtYahoJW+03 YCfEdwwN5ulpT9VI+9dmb+RFJ0s1Xn1OFVdMrVbRK9/S3fbWDpJfuNKMN6DFtvPk63 UW0Bf1/q+gP9+X0x+hczD4sAGhXjJIHhcbIzkcBc= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111129165430.0ac9fbd8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:00:42 -0800 To: Frank Ellermann From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: spfbis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spfbis] yam X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:01:14 -0000 Hi Frank, At 16:30 28-11-2011, Frank Ellermann wrote: >Now why is it that I think finishing 4408bis will be far easier than creating >a WG charter permitting to do it in the first place? Because you'll have to deal with Sender-ID if you want to close the chapter. There are some advantages to having a WG charter, i.e. a view of the work to be done. Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 30 12:01:31 2011 Return-Path: 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 D52521F0C51 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:01:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cOWaIfXADF7L for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB3E21F84AC for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:01:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:01:06 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:01:05 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "spfbis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:01:04 -0800 Thread-Topic: SPFBIS proposed charter Thread-Index: Acyvmsq2YeCrdB1TSK+TVqOt6HBf7A== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C152FDEXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:01:32 -0000 --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C152FDEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list. As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for the work= ing group. Many of you have already seen it privately, and it was circulat= ed and discussed briefly within the APPS area working group session in Taip= ei and its mailing list. Attached is the latest version, a product of all = of the above. So the usual questions: - Does this charter capture an accurate description of the problem= to be solved (in our case, it's really the work to be done)? - Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope? - Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the working= group? - Who is willing to act as document editor(s)? - Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already out there, = who is likely to update their implementations to match any changes in the s= pecs) and participate in interoperability testing? - Who is willing to co-chair a working group? I'll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in terms of i= ts goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or edit documents, o= r act as a co-chair. Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS area directors as to whe= ther or not there's enough interest to warrant a BoF in Paris, or even to s= kip that step and just charter the working group. Thanks, -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C152FDEXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello all, and w= elcome to the SPFbis mailing list.

=  

As usual, our first order of business = is to hash out a charter for the working group.  Many of you have alre= ady seen it privately, and it was circulated and discussed briefly within t= he APPS area working group session in Taipei and its mailing list.  At= tached is the latest version, a product of all of the above.

=

 

So the usual= questions:

 

<= ![if !supportLists]>-        &nbs= p; Does this charter capture an accurate descriptio= n of the problem to be solved (in our case, it’s really the work to b= e done)?

-   &nbs= p;      Is the charter app= ropriately broad and/or limited in scope?

-          Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the wor= king group?

-   &= nbsp;      Who is willing = to act as document editor(s)?

-&= nbsp;         Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already out there, who is l= ikely to update their implementations to match any changes in the specs) an= d participate in interoperability testing?

-          <= /span>Who is willing to co-chair a working group?

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

I’ll pu= t down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in terms of its goal= s and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or edit documents, or act a= s a co-chair.

 

Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS area dir= ectors as to whether or not there’s enough interest to warrant a BoF = in Paris, or even to skip that step and just charter the working group.


Thanks,

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C152FDEXCHC2corpclo_-- From pmidge@microsoft.com Wed Nov 30 12:06:50 2011 Return-Path: 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 45DA91F0C5D for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 0XRKtO6Ge8vJ for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from VA3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2B41F0C65 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail68-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.252) by VA3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.7.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:46 +0000 Received: from mail68-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail68-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51D61003F3; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -39 X-BigFish: VS-39(zz9371Kc85fh148cM14ffO4015Lzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI Received-SPF: pass (mail68-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=pmidge@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail68-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail68-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1322683605491177_13822; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.242]) by mail68-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E354C004D; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS023.bigfish.com (10.7.99.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:41 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC202.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.192]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.005; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:31 -0800 From: Paul Midgen To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" , "spfbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: SPFBIS proposed charter Thread-Index: Acyvmsq2YeCrdB1TSK+TVqOt6HBf7AAAEFPA Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:31 +0000 Message-ID: <7F7F36E50398F84DBAF25C9D51732F1E204286FC@TK5EX14MBXC202.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.21] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7F7F36E50398F84DBAF25C9D51732F1E204286FCTK5EX14MBXC202r_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:50 -0000 --_000_7F7F36E50398F84DBAF25C9D51732F1E204286FCTK5EX14MBXC202r_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Murray, thanks for putting this all together. You're the man, as usual. = I didn't get your attachment, but will base my answers on the assumption th= at the charter is largely unchanged from the last one I saw. CIL. From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:01 PM To: spfbis@ietf.org Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list. As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for the work= ing group. Many of you have already seen it privately, and it was circulat= ed and discussed briefly within the APPS area working group session in Taip= ei and its mailing list. Attached is the latest version, a product of all = of the above. So the usual questions: - Does this charter capture an accurate description of the problem= to be solved (in our case, it's really the work to be done)? [pmidge] yes - Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope? [pmidge] yes - Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the working= group? [pmidge] sign me up. - Who is willing to act as document editor(s)? [pmidge] i've seen what you go through doing this, so I'm loathe to sign up= to do it, but if you can't and there's nobody else... - Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already out there, = who is likely to update their implementations to match any changes in the s= pecs) and participate in interoperability testing? [pmidge] we have pre-emptively planned changes to our SPF/SenderID code to = pivot on different identities and make it easier to adapt to record format = changes. - Who is willing to co-chair a working group? [pmidge] sign me up. I'll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in terms of i= ts goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or edit documents, o= r act as a co-chair. Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS area directors as to whe= ther or not there's enough interest to warrant a BoF in Paris, or even to s= kip that step and just charter the working group. Thanks, -MSK --_000_7F7F36E50398F84DBAF25C9D51732F1E204286FCTK5EX14MBXC202r_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Murray, thanks for = putting this all together. You’re the man, as usual. I didn’t g= et your attachment, but will base my answers on the assumption that the cha= rter is largely unchanged from the last one I saw. CIL.

 

From: spfbis-b= ounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:01 PM
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

 

Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list.

 

As usual, our first order of business is to hash out= a charter for the working group.  Many of you have already seen it pr= ivately, and it was circulated and discussed briefly within the APPS area w= orking group session in Taipei and its mailing list.  Attached is the latest version, a product of all of th= e above.

 

So the usual questions:

 

-     &= nbsp;    Does this charter capture an accurate description o= f the problem to be solved (in our case, it’s really the work to be d= one)?

[pmidge] yes

-     &= nbsp;    Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited i= n scope?

[pmidge] yes

-     &= nbsp;    Who is willing to review and comment on documents i= n the working group?

[pmidge] sign me= up.

-     &= nbsp;    Who is willing to act as document editor(s)?

[pmidge] i’= ;ve seen what you go through doing this, so I’m loathe to sign up to = do it, but if you can’t and there’s nobody else…

-     &= nbsp;    Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is alread= y out there, who is likely to update their implementations to match any cha= nges in the specs) and participate in interoperability testing?<= /p>

[pmidge] we have= pre-emptively planned changes to our SPF/SenderID code to pivot on differe= nt identities and make it easier to adapt to record format changes.

-     &= nbsp;    Who is willing to co-chair a working group?

[pmidge] sign me= up.

 

I’ll put down my answers as: I agree with the = current charter in terms of its goals and scope, and I also volunteer to re= view and/or edit documents, or act as a co-chair.

 

Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS a= rea directors as to whether or not there’s enough interest to warrant= a BoF in Paris, or even to skip that step and just charter the working gro= up.


Thanks,

-MSK

--_000_7F7F36E50398F84DBAF25C9D51732F1E204286FCTK5EX14MBXC202r_-- From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 30 12:07:01 2011 Return-Path: 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 9F4151F0C62 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:07:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.876 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.278, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nvdVVTPrTQsa for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBF11F0C51 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:58 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "spfbis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:58 -0800 Thread-Topic: SPFBIS proposed charter Thread-Index: Acyvmsq2YeCrdB1TSK+TVqOt6HBf7AAALhcw Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:07:01 -0000 --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_" --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry I'm new to this whole email thing, and I failed to attach it. It's a= ttached here. From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:01 PM To: spfbis@ietf.org Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list. As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for the work= ing group. Many of you have already seen it privately, and it was circulat= ed and discussed briefly within the APPS area working group session in Taip= ei and its mailing list. Attached is the latest version, a product of all = of the above. So the usual questions: - Does this charter capture an accurate description of the problem= to be solved (in our case, it's really the work to be done)? - Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope? - Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the working= group? - Who is willing to act as document editor(s)? - Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already out there, = who is likely to update their implementations to match any changes in the s= pecs) and participate in interoperability testing? - Who is willing to co-chair a working group? I'll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in terms of i= ts goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or edit documents, o= r act as a co-chair. Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS area directors as to whe= ther or not there's enough interest to warrant a BoF in Paris, or even to s= kip that step and just charter the working group. Thanks, -MSK --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry I’m new to this whole email thing, and I failed t= o attach it.  It’s attached here.

 

 

=

From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mail= to:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
S= ent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:01 PM
To: spfbis@ietf.or= g
Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

=

 

= Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list.

 

As usual, our first = order of business is to hash out a charter for the working group.  Man= y of you have already seen it privately, and it was circulated and discusse= d briefly within the APPS area working group session in Taipei and its mail= ing list.  Attached is the latest version, a product of all of the abo= ve.

 

So the usual questions:

 = ;

-     &nbs= p;    Does this charter capture an a= ccurate description of the problem to be solved (in our case, it’s re= ally the work to be done)?

-&nb= sp;         Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope?

=

-       &nb= sp;  Who is willing to review and comment on d= ocuments in the working group?

-=           Who is willing to act as document editor(s)?

-          Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already = out there, who is likely to update their implementations to match any chang= es in the specs) and participate in interoperability testing?

-       &n= bsp;  Who is willing to co-chair a working gro= up?

 

I’ll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter i= n terms of its goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or edit = documents, or act as a co-chair.

&n= bsp;

Our responses to this will be feedback t= o the APPS area directors as to whether or not there’s enough interes= t to warrant a BoF in Paris, or even to skip that step and just charter the= working group.


Thanks,

-MSK

= --_000_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_-- --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_ Content-Type: text/plain; name="spfbis-charter.txt" Content-Description: spfbis-charter.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="spfbis-charter.txt"; size=3647; creation-date="Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:39 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:55:15 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 V29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBOYW1lOgoJU1BGIFVwZGF0ZSAoU1BGQklTKQoKSUVURiBBcmVhOgoJQXBw bGljYXRpb25zIEFyZWEKCkNoYWlyKHMpOgoJVEJECgpBcHBsaWNhdGlvbnMgQXJlYSBEaXJlY3Rv cihzKToKCVBldGUgUmVzbmljayA8cHJlc25pY2tAcXVhbGNvbW0uY29tPgoJUGV0ZXIgU2FpbnQt QW5kcmUgPHN0cGV0ZXJAc3RwZXRlci5pbT4KCkFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBBcmVhIEFkdmlzb3I6CglQ ZXRlIFJlc25pY2sgPHByZXNuaWNrQHF1YWxjb21tLmNvbT4KCk1haWxpbmcgTGlzdHM6CglHZW5l cmFsIERpc2N1c3Npb246IHNwZmJpc0BpZXRmLm9yZwoJVG8gU3Vic2NyaWJlOgkgICAgaHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zcGZiaXMKCUFyY2hpdmU6CSAgICBodHRw Oi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWwtYXJjaGl2ZS93ZWIvc3BmYmlzLwoKRGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2Yg V29ya2luZyBHcm91cDoKCVRoZSBTZW5kZXIgUG9saWN5IEZyYW1ld29yayAoU1BGLCBSRkM0NDA4 KSBzcGVjaWZpZXMgdGhlIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uCglvZiBhIEROUyByZWNvcmQgd2hpY2ggc3RhdGVz IHRoYXQgYSBsaXN0ZWQgSVAgYWRkcmVzcyBpcyBhdXRob3JpemVkCgl0byBzZW5kIG1haWwgb24g YmVoYWxmIG9mIHRoZSBsaXN0aW5nIGRvbWFpbiBuYW1lJ3Mgb3duZXIuICBTTVRQCglzZXJ2ZXJz IGV4dHJhY3QgdGhlIGRvbWFpbiBuYW1lIGluIHRoZSBTTVRQICJNQUlMIEZST00iIG9yICJIRUxP IgoJY29tbWFuZCBmb3IgY29uZmlybWluZyB0aGlzIGF1dGhvcml6YXRpb24uICBUaGUgcHJvdG9j b2wgaGFzIGhhZAoJRXhwZXJpbWVudGFsIHN0YXR1cyBmb3Igc29tZSB5ZWFycyBhbmQgaGFzIGJl Y29tZSB3aWRlbHkgZGVwbG95ZWQuCglUaGlzIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgd2lsbCByZXZpc2UgdGhl IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24sIGJhc2VkIG9uIGRlcGxveW1lbnQKCWV4cGVyaWVuY2UgYW5kIGxpc3Rl ZCBlcnJhdGEsIGFuIHdpbGwgc2VlayBTdGFuZGFyZHMgVHJhY2sgc3RhdHVzIGZvcgoJdGhlIHBy b3RvY29sLgoKCVRoZSBNQVJJRCB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGNyZWF0ZWQgdHdvIHNwZWNpZmljYXRp b25zIGZvciBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiBvZiAKCWVtYWlsLXNlbmRpbmcgYXV0aG9yaXphdGlvbjogIFNl bmRlci1JRCAoUkZGQzQ0MDUsIFJGQzQ0MDYgYW5kIFJGQzQ0MDcpCglhbmQgU1BGIChSRkM0NDA4 KSwgd2l0aCBib3RoIGhhdmluZyBFeHBlcmltZW50YWwgc3RhdHVzLiAgQnkgdXNpbmcKCUlQIGFk ZHJlc3NlcywgYm90aCBwcm90b2NvbHMgc3BlY2lmeSBhdXRob3JpemF0aW9uIGluIHRlcm1zIG9m IHBhdGgsCgl0aG91Z2ggdW5saWtlIFNQRiwgU2VuZGVyLUlEIHVzZXMgZG9tYWluIG5hbWVzIGZv dW5kIGluIHRoZSBoZWFkZXIgb2YKCXRoZSBtZXNzYWdlIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHRoZSBlbnZlbG9w ZS4KCglUaGUgdHdvIHByb3RvY29scyByZWx5IG9uIHRoZSBzYW1lIHBvbGljeSBtZWNoYW5pc20s IG5hbWVseSBhCglzcGVjaWZpYyBUWFQgcmVzb3VyY2UgcmVjb3JkIGluIHRoZSBETlMuICBUaGlz IGNyZWF0ZXMgYSBiYXNpYyAKICAgICAgICBhbWJpZ3VpdHkgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGludGVycHJldGF0 aW9uIG9mIGFueSBzcGVjaWZpYyBpbnN0YW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgVFhUIAogICAgICAgIHJlY29yZC4g IEJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdGhpcywgdGhlcmUgd2VyZSBjb25jZXJucyBhYm91dCBjb25mbGljdHMgYmV0 d2VlbiAKICAgICAgICB0aGUgdHdvIGluIGNvbmN1cnJlbnQgb3BlcmF0aW9uLiAgVGhlIElFU0cg Tm90ZSBhZGRlZCB0byBlYWNoIGludml0ZWQKCWFuIGV4cHJlc3Npb24gb2YgY29tbXVuaXR5IGNv bnNlbnN1cyBpbiB0aGUgcGVyaW9kIGZvbGxvd2luZyB0aGVzZQoJcHVibGljYXRpb25zLgoKCUJv dGggZW5qb3llZCBpbml0aWFsbHkgbGFyZ2UgZGVwbG95bWVudHMuICBCcm9hZCBTUEYgdXNlIGNv bnRpbnVlcywKCWFuZCBpdHMgbGlua2FnZSB0byB0aGUgZW52ZWxvcGUgLS0gcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4g U2VuZGVyLUlEJ3MgbGlua2FnZQoJdG8gaWRlbnRpZmllcnMgaW4gdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgY29udGVu dCAtLSBoYXMgcHJvdmVuIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQgYW1vbmcKCW9wZXJhdG9ycy4gIFRoaXMgY29uY2x1 ZGVzIHRoZSBleHBlcmltZW50LgoKCUNoYW5nZXMgdG8gdGhlIFNQRiBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdp bGwgYmUgbGltaXRlZCB0byB0aGUgY29ycmVjdGlvbgoJb2YgZXJyb3JzLCByZW1vdmFsIG9mIHVu dXNlZCBmZWF0dXJlcywgYWRkaXRpb24gb2YgYW55IGVuaGFuY2VtZW50cwoJdGhhdCBoYXZlIGFs cmVhZHkgZ2FpbmVkIHdpZGVzcHJlYWQgc3VwcG9ydCwgYW5kIGFkZGl0aW9uIG9mCgljbGFyaWZ5 aW5nIGxhbmd1YWdlLgoKCVRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBwcm9kdWNlIGEgZG9j dW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmluZyB0aGUKCWNvdXJzZSBvZiB0aGUgU1BGL1NlbmRlci1JRCBleHBlcmlt ZW50IChkZWZpbmVkIGluIHRoZSBJRVNHIG5vdGUKCW9uIHRoZSBSRkNzIGluIHF1ZXN0aW9uKSwg YnJpbmdpbmcgdGhhdCBleHBlcmltZW50IHRvIGEgZm9ybWFsCgljb25jbHVzaW9uLiAgTm8gb3Ro ZXIgd29yayBvbiBTZW5kZXItSUQgd2lsbCBiZSBkb25lLgoKCUZpbmFsbHksIHRoZSB3b3JraW5n IGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgZGV2ZWxvcCB0aGUgcHJvcG9zZWQgInNjb3BlIgoJZXh0ZW5zaW9uIGZvdW5k IGluIGRyYWZ0LW1laG5sZS1zcGZiaXMtc2NvcGUuCgoJU3BlY2lmaWNhbGx5IG91dC1vZi1zY29w ZSBmb3IgdGhpcyB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwOgoKCSogUmV2aXNpdGluZyBwYXN0IHRlY2huaWNhbCBh cmd1bWVudHMgdGhhdCB3ZXJlIGNvdmVyZWQKCSAgaW4gdGhlIE1BUklEIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAs IGV4Y2VwdCB3aGVyZSByZXZpZXcgaXMgcmVhc29uYWJseQoJICB3YXJyYW50ZWQgYmFzZWQgb24g b3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgZXhwZXJpZW5jZS4KCgkqIERpc2N1c3Npb24gb2YgdGhlIG1lcml0cyBvZiBT UEYuCgoJKiBEaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBtZXJpdHMgb2YgU2VuZGVyLUlEIGluIHByZWZlcmVu Y2UgdG8gU1BGLgoKCSogRXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0byBTUEYgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgb25lIHNwZWNp ZmllZCBhYm92ZS4gIFRoZQoJICB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIHdpbGwgcmUtY2hhcnRlciB0byBwcm9j ZXNzIG90aGVyIHNwZWNpZmljIHByb3Bvc2VkCgkgIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgYXMgdGhleSBhcmUgaWRl bnRpZmllZC4KCglUaGUgaW5pdGlhbCBkcmFmdCBzZXQ6CgkJZHJhZnQta2l0dGVybWFuLTQ0MDhi aXMKCQlkcmFmdC1tZWhubGUtc3BmYmlzLXNjb3BlCgpHb2FscyBhbmQgTWlsZXN0b25lczoKCU1N TSBZWVlZOglBIHN0YW5kYXJkcyB0cmFjayBkb2N1bWVudCBkZWZpbmluZyBTUEYsCgkJCWJhc2Vk IG9uIFJGQzQ0MDggYW5kIGFzIGFtZW5kZWQgYWJvdmUsCiAJCQl0byB0aGUgSUVTRyBmb3IgcHVi bGljYXRpb24uCgoJTU1NIFlZWVk6CUEgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmluZyB0aGUgU1BGL1NlbmRl ci1JRCBleHBlcmltZW50CgkJCWFuZCBpdHMgY29uY2x1c2lvbnMgdG8gdGhlIElFU0cgZm9yIHB1 YmxpY2F0aW9uLgoKCU1NTSBZWVlZOglBIHN0YW5kYXJkcyB0cmFjayBkb2N1bWVudCBjcmVhdGlu ZyB0aGUgInNjb3BlIgoJCQlleHRlbnNpb24gdG8gdGhlIElFU0cgZm9yIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uLgo= --_004_F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15302EXCHC2corpclo_-- From sm@resistor.net Wed Nov 30 13:52:35 2011 Return-Path: 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 C8B5D11E809D for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:52:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 G7ovwJD+Nr38 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A75811E8081 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:52:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pAULqPbs027724 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:52:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1322689950; bh=LaVty+5fNxUipMbLCq+I3TBB85S4uTj/YI2yROYGczM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=4bxwyEVyihWDfhW6E3pO6YMeCRM6G+JJ7v2m4/p2OfUJ+X1za9NR6+5X9CRc8NDRR b61QDOWqAgOsJuwDOFvZ2kCBhqi+CW+6vZu/x08qZUfOugtgVEb0Lqzekf86xmIcxU c+GvaWiT/FhuMi+Fg0Y6qJjbtWcoAi/WiNd3BDGA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1322689950; bh=LaVty+5fNxUipMbLCq+I3TBB85S4uTj/YI2yROYGczM=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=iIb7ILhKzKqZlYwoTeiUwrI2mO37cg1r0xZ/G/vqkilvfNhCcLUfRkbWkfq3CydV8 dPaeeSvyUCnoaa1HtCxoNDN2V6iJ1Y4XfIV6AQJwdCIcS1W401Ue2fehd1QA8gUkf2 El2461ZQyRIDe8YVOfIwoYtaUlSTLvYX1vO85B90= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111130134620.0caeabd0@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:52:22 -0800 To: spfbis@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:52:35 -0000 At 12:06 30-11-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for >the working group. Many of you have already seen it privately, and >it was circulated and discussed briefly within the APPS area working >group session in Taipei and its mailing list. Attached is the >latest version, a product of all of the above. [snip] > >I'll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in >terms of its goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or >edit documents, or act as a co-chair. I'll volunteer too. I'll ask the obvious question: are there any strong concerns about moving the Sender-ID RFCs to Historic? BTW, where's the draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope document? Regards, -sm From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 30 13:56:57 2011 Return-Path: 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 81FE911E80A2 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:56:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MrcNMPt2Ykmj for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C8211E809D for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:56:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:56:56 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "spfbis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:56:55 -0800 Thread-Topic: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter Thread-Index: AcyvqmO6BDxUqkiQSKSisfa3B4y/VAAAHw9A Message-ID: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111130134620.0caeabd0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111130134620.0caeabd0@resistor.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:56:57 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of SM > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:52 PM > To: spfbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter >=20 > BTW, where's the draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope document? I've contacted the author, and now his boss, to remind him to post it. :-) From dhc2@dcrocker.net Wed Nov 30 15:50:44 2011 Return-Path: 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 6DF851F0C51 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:50:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 NjTeHejDh-Gg for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9269D1F0C35 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:50:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAUNobxH009107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:50:42 -0800 Message-ID: <4ED6C139.3050604@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:50:17 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:50:43 -0800 (PST) Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:50:44 -0000 On 11/30/2011 12:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > -Does this charter capture an accurate description of the problem to be solved > (in our case, itÂ’s really the work to be done)? > > -Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope? yes. both. minor suggestion: The two protocols rely on the same policy mechanism, -> The two protocols rely on the same policy publication mechanism, (one can argue that their different sources of identifiers constitutes very different policies...) > -Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the working group? +1 > -Who is willing to act as document editor(s)? I am actually quite motivated to sign up for this. Independent of being in love with SPF or not, I am concerned that this spec be well written and technically tight. This is a widely used mechanism and its technical documents need to be easily usable by the widest range of developers an operations staff. That requires the simplest technology and the best documents that can tolerable. Removing unused or problematic features makes a specification easier to understand and implement and reduces the likelihood of interoperability problems. Determining what -- if anything -- can be removed is a community consensus process, but it requires some research to formulate proposals for changes. The challenge is that any proposal carefully consider the risks of the removal, not just the benefits. Document quality is a technical editing task and I started my career doing that. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2@dcrocker.net Wed Nov 30 16:03:39 2011 Return-Path: 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 E1F251F0C36 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:03:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 GDj7zMrvq2Sj for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AF31F0C35 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:03:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pB103X6k009245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:03:38 -0800 Message-ID: <4ED6C443.20107@dcrocker.net> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:03:15 -0800 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111130134620.0caeabd0@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111130134620.0caeabd0@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:03:39 -0800 (PST) Cc: spfbis@ietf.org Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:03:40 -0000 On 11/30/2011 1:52 PM, SM wrote: > I'll ask the obvious question: are there any strong concerns about moving the > Sender-ID RFCs to Historic? We need to leave Sender-ID alone for this round of effort. Touching it is inviting distraction and delay from producing an SPF specification on standards track. There is nothing that /requires/ touching it as part of the SPF effort. The paper that reviews the two specs is the very most that makes sense to pursue now, IMO. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From spf2@kitterman.com Wed Nov 30 18:25:02 2011 Return-Path: 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 5B9A811E809B for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:25:02 -0800 (PST) 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=[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 2JLkNTP3DD-A for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:25:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B4B11E8097 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:25:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C5E20E4177; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:25:00 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1322706300; bh=eqZ11T7Djo2YZFxVCvqMv1/RoBWDflAG8RKh6wqXj3I=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=az3tQWKEyDMrPFg9i3JixGug/MMocEPI8yliy5TIUvl4eWQDmTPeSlv9qs2BpPnrw l/rh2IRzEddXSahCVRTvt9IyJmGWnB6CRoyJOKxALW+/+j19GX46KnLNo8AqxkXVbb yAo+1G55il+kgHSj6L8/1CJR8Iq9e92vjeqKXOjw= Received: from [192.168.4.210] (unknown [12.50.158.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC8EB20E4094; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:24:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4ED6E57A.3030108@kitterman.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:24:58 -0500 From: Scott Kitterman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spfbis@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 02:25:02 -0000 On 11/30/2011 03:06 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Sorry I'm new to this whole email thing, and I failed to attach it. > It's attached here. > > > From: spfbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:spfbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 > 12:01 PM To: spfbis@ietf.org Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed > charter > > Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list. > > As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for > the working group. Many of you have already seen it privately, and > it was circulated and discussed briefly within the APPS area working > group session in Taipei and its mailing list. Attached is the latest > version, a product of all of the above. > > So the usual questions: > > > - Does this charter capture an accurate description of the > problem to be solved (in our case, it's really the work to be done)? > > - Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in > scope? > > - Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the > working group? > > - Who is willing to act as document editor(s)? > > - Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already out > there, who is likely to update their implementations to match any > changes in the specs) and participate in interoperability testing? > > - Who is willing to co-chair a working group? > > I'll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in > terms of its goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or > edit documents, or act as a co-chair. > > Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS area directors as > to whether or not there's enough interest to warrant a BoF in Paris, > or even to skip that step and just charter the working group. I'm certainly willing to participate in whatever capacity is needed within the working group. I have a strong desire to continue work as editor for the working group of the 4408bis document I already started as an input document. I'm the co-maintainer of one widely deployed SPF library (pyspf) and intend to implement needed changes from 4408bis (I also maintain a widely used web based SPF checker and an email based checker that use this library - I'll update those too). I'm also glad to work on interoperability testing. There is an existing test suite for RFC 4408 SPF that is used by multiple implementations. Updating that test suite to account for 4408bis changes should make identifying interoperability issues relatively easy. http://www.openspf.net/Test_Suite Charter comments: I think it's just about exactly what we need. I agree with Dave Crocker's comment about sharing a policy publication mechanism between Sender ID and SPF. Also (a detail) the last sentence of the first paragraph should be "... and will seek ..." instead of "... an will seek ...". Scott K From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Wed Nov 30 18:51:53 2011 Return-Path: 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 DD3FE1F0C47 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9U4eGsUiZCnZ for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A67D1F0C36 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by eabm6 with SMTP id m6so1759125eab.31 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wzAADq+NVj5rz6rYL3DCM3teW9d1yi/fv3qAkGkP4ow=; b=DJ7DVO4N2NGCWVDtYpnWGlfc4sHaMNhfron818awUitlYwSKgEZvxtCnZTaqVNF5lm JZr7l7VC9ySqfj9sgca1KLI9ZBz1Qi56d5U5fjAV2Fi+fcOOF63+1T9g5H/MsJ1IbmcB BTPWoX4NHwi2a8SfTIfslv0Vpx0qLBnXTzUiU= Received: by 10.227.203.131 with SMTP id fi3mr2692757wbb.17.1322707908084; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.255.70 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:51:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 03:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 02:51:54 -0000 On 30 November 2011 21:06, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > -=A0=A0Does this charter capture an accurate description of the problem > to be solved (in our case, it=92s really the work to be done)? Anything "scope" should be out of scope. It's a known rat-hole and got enough visits in the early SPF years. I strongly object to any "scope" discussions; please remove the "scope" memo from the Charter. The known "pra" + "mfrom" + hypothetical "helo" scopes can be handled in the "conclusion of the experiment" memo. The implemented mfrom + helo practice is known as SPF and specified in RFC 4408. For the memo describing the "experiment" some limited discussion about technical PRA details not limited to "merits" might be necessary. It's not helpful to say in the WG Charter that the topic of this memo is off topic: "Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF." Let this known rathole get its last visit, after all it is for the good purpose of being the _last_ visit. CSV can also get a last visit, in a world without SPF it would be far better than SPF wrt to HELO/EHLO. > -=A0 Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope? You can't say that PRA is off topic if you want to finish this business in the "conclusion of the experiment" memo. The WG should be free to adopt drafts about general SPF topics such as a "modifier registry" for the SPF-MARF draft, or any EAI considerations. It should be also free to ignore these general topics where that's irrelevant for 4408bis. I'm willing to update or rewrite the SPF-EAI draft if somebody plans to implement it. I intend to revive the SPF options draft when and if I feel that it helps for SPF "modifier registry" or "scope" discussions. If you run out of volunteers for the "conclusion of the experiment" memo I can be tempted to help as co-editor (but then there should be a "plan B" for any extended AWOL periods on my side). -Frank From spf2@kitterman.com Wed Nov 30 18:57:01 2011 Return-Path: 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 9281821F8B50 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:57:01 -0800 (PST) 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=[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 vX5KfvjLnoeG for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21A721F8B4F for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4034D20E4177; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:57:00 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1322708220; bh=E4e5Q4f2v2P4xoyRktTqoJT2IFsnssB4j7ruYJ/glAU=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kaeSuuN28z3Pj1dnvJgALrSIfQ0Pw03izTWcstaO/43FJ77kwIEcM4BpcDJfVpljw iMVKjc1vI8tiiFofklmz0XbmH8kl2Z+3v1TqTsB7mbKv/xZXPCM/TvlyfocH7J9y+y spWFbvRbM7hI6tRXLnyq5U/6k6W9opMZstx5n8lk= Received: from [192.168.4.210] (unknown [12.50.158.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E555220E4094; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:56:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4ED6ECFA.7030304@kitterman.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:56:58 -0500 From: Scott Kitterman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spfbis@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 02:57:01 -0000 On 11/30/2011 09:51 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: >> - Does this charter capture an accurate description of the problem >> > to be solved (in our case, it’s really the work to be done)? > Anything "scope" should be out of scope. It's a known rat-hole and got > enough visits in the early SPF years. I strongly object to any "scope" > discussions; please remove the "scope" memo from the Charter. Frank, Please wait for the draft. I'm not sure it'll be what you're expecting. Scott K From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 30 20:06:19 2011 Return-Path: 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 B707A21F84A4 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yn3PP6-ixgN5 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4180721F84A3 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:17 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "spfbis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:19 -0800 Thread-Topic: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter Thread-Index: Acyv1Cy+wnlCEj0YRB2DSKXcQE5uYQACTUtA Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 04:06:19 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 6:51 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: spfbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter >=20 > Anything "scope" should be out of scope. It's a known rat-hole and got > enough visits in the early SPF years. I strongly object to any "scope" > discussions; please remove the "scope" memo from the Charter. What Scott said. > For the memo describing the "experiment" some limited discussion about > technical PRA details not limited to "merits" might be necessary. It's > not helpful to say in the WG Charter that the topic of this memo is off > topic: "Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF." I think it is helpful. Failing to call it out in the charter leaves us ope= n to years-old food fights that won't help the current effort in the least,= and I'd just as soon avoid that. It is entirely possible to write a document describing the experiment and i= ts conclusions without carving up the good and bad points of the two protoc= ols. That's what this charter is attempting to encourage. > You can't say that PRA is off topic if you want to finish this business > in the "conclusion of the experiment" memo. I disagree. > The WG should be free to > adopt drafts about general SPF topics such as a "modifier registry" for > the SPF-MARF draft, or any EAI considerations. It should be also free > to ignore these general topics where that's irrelevant for 4408bis. The WG is free to do two things: 1) Include stuff like the modifier registry in RFC4408bis, especially if we= agree that should've been done in the first place. 2) Recharter to increase its scope if it thinks stuff like helping MARF or = EAI would be a good idea. > I'm willing to update or rewrite the SPF-EAI draft if somebody plans to > implement it. I intend to revive the SPF options draft when and if I > feel that it helps for SPF "modifier registry" or "scope" discussions. Both of those are out of scope for this charter, but you might be able to t= alk the working group into rechartering to cover them once the first round = of deliverables is complete. Or, for that matter, you could lobby this lis= t to consider adding them now if it's appropriate to do so. > If you run out of volunteers for the "conclusion of the experiment" > memo I can be tempted to help as co-editor (but then there should be a > "plan B" for any extended AWOL periods on my side). Thanks for volunteering. -MSK From tony@att.com Wed Nov 30 21:12:47 2011 Return-Path: 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 74D7311E80BA for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:12:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 H723rT89zpAa for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:12:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFA611E80B6 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:12:46 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1322716364!32846843!1 X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-StarScan-Version: 6.3.6; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 32085 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2011 05:12:45 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-8.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Dec 2011 05:12:45 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB15DDJw020987 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:13:13 -0500 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pB15D6RM020930 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:13:07 -0500 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB15CbfQ001623 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:12:38 -0500 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB15CVuX001452 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:12:31 -0500 Received: from [135.70.40.161] (vpn-135-70-40-161.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.40.161]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20111201051120gw100e4l5fe> (Authid: tony); Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:11:20 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.40.161] Message-ID: <4ED70CBB.5050903@att.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:12:27 -0500 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spfbis@ietf.org References: <4ED6C139.3050604@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <4ED6C139.3050604@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 05:12:47 -0000 Can I say ditto? Let me know if I can help in any way. Tony On 11/30/2011 6:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > -Who is willing to act as document editor(s)? > > I am actually quite motivated to sign up for this. > > Independent of being in love with SPF or not, I am concerned that this > spec be well written and technically tight. From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Wed Nov 30 22:16:06 2011 Return-Path: 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 278501F0C36 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:16:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cJB7VKf3O34a for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:16:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111F11F0C48 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:16:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghrr18 with SMTP id r18so1809811ghr.31 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:16:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XBteyfusQ0hbZ79msYJWf2h2P+2GUAgcPq08vt8QR3s=; b=q73sxRBFoLTk7GvS29fxR29J3LI3bFuO6rNhkHxb/65p1tXYrGnk3Vcgjo7Qr9OyFb FJvbyUSbtdBHOHUk4IOgU2XJW2XGBnOsU77GrwNN1f5Sc6gdf/7T80eYa5B0cr7+rTuJ CNeKnJahu5otDko3/HLyW0LtNW9vzTjEP7dEY= Received: by 10.68.51.135 with SMTP id k7mr2193287pbo.72.1322720164189; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:16:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.11.10 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:15:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 07:15:23 +0100 Message-ID: To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "spfbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:16:06 -0000 On 1 December 2011 05:06, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: [unknown scope memo] >> Anything "scope" should be out of scope. =A0It's a known rat-hole and go= t >> enough visits in the early SPF years. =A0I strongly object to any "scope= " >> discussions; please remove the "scope" memo from the Charter. > What Scott said. I've had my share of back-chamber nobody-knows-what-it-is secret late surprises in MARID, that was enough. Drop it, you, Scott, or Julian, drop it, whatever it is. If it is something good let's talk about it *after* 4408bis is on standards track. [conclusion memo] >> It's not helpful to say in the WG Charter that the topic of this memo is >> off topic: "Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF." > I think it is helpful. =A0Failing to call it out in the charter leaves us > open to years-old food fights that won't help the current effort in the > least, and I'd just as soon avoid that. That's as easy as 1-2-3 from my POV: PRA doesn't fly with 822 and 4409 as they were. 6609 intentionally didn't change that, therefore PRA is still not strictly compatible with "the e-mail architecture". The idea to modify header fields of in-transit mail is unpopular, putting it very mildly. The idea to add a "responsible submitter" SMTP extension (4405) worldwide was also unpopular, because it's like some hopeless FUSSP quest. The SPF concept of modifying only the envelope sender in forwarding scenarios was already bad enough for all involved parties, but at least it is derived from the original STD 10 reverse path concept. Otherwise, (1) if we could update SMTPs worldwide to support 4405, (2) if we could decree that 5322 or its successor is STD 11, (3) if we could add a minor tweak to 6609 explaining the secrets of "MAY add Resent-Sender", and (4) all forwarders and MUA implementors follow suit, then PRA could make perfect sense. But that is obviously not the case, and no happy end for the PRA story. The definition (4407) was brilliant, but in practice a focus on "reverse path" =3D "mail from" =3D "envelope sender" turned out to be simpler, or le= t's say "bad enough" (for forwarders). > It is entirely possible to write a document describing the experiment > and its conclusions without carving up the good and bad points of the > two protocols. I doubt it. I'd agree that it doesn't require more than the 25 lines above, but obviously the WG has to discuss the content of these 25 lines when it works on the "conclusion memo". Do you fear that some PRA fans pop-up from the woodwork in an odd attempt to repeat MARID from scratch? Within anything remotely related to the IETF there is only one PRA-fan I'm aware of, the worst fan it can have: me. [suggested charter] > The WG is free to do two things: > 1) Include stuff like the modifier registry in RFC4408bis, especially > if we agree that should've been done in the first place. Speedy disagree, creating registries before they are actually needed is IMHO a bad idea. The SPF options draft was originally designed to be a chapter in 4408, and there was consensus to do this elsewhere and later only when needed, because 4408 was long and complex enough without such esoteric modifier considerations. For 4408bis it could make sense to put the (boring) technical details of a "SPF modifier registry" in a separate memo, and while at it maybe also move the (fixed) Received-SPF header details to this separate memo, recommending 5451 in 4408bis proper. -Frank From spf2@kitterman.com Wed Nov 30 22:21:35 2011 Return-Path: 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 92EA81F0C4C for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:21:35 -0800 (PST) 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=[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 F3UjF0w9v8Hh for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB581F0C48 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:21:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5796E20E4177; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:21:33 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1322720493; bh=wh/++b2C1wBLVIZfeo772riHkgHhJDgoISNwOPgMlO4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=We5RKZyeh4DdAUv7nXA6AObBk/OO3VEw+lFUM3I2wXBehNA4glCIALbJszJ3lEgp6 vKaBqOEGSF1/2OliaYITF6LqAxC+I7l0lGaRpCyorsWNHHn1cdjF+9/ibttk9K7DFv sI4s1Yo54/3m2QMjOIsNKMsXZQ7l9BHvPaNQpaKI= Received: from [184.49.117.55] (unknown [12.50.158.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1568F20E4094; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:21:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4ED71CEB.2040908@kitterman.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:21:31 -0500 From: Scott Kitterman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: spfbis@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:21:35 -0000 On 12/01/2011 01:15 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > On 1 December 2011 05:06, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > [unknown scope memo] >>> >> Anything "scope" should be out of scope. It's a known rat-hole and got >>> >> enough visits in the early SPF years. I strongly object to any "scope" >>> >> discussions; please remove the "scope" memo from the Charter. >> > What Scott said. > I've had my share of back-chamber nobody-knows-what-it-is secret late > surprises in MARID, that was enough. Drop it, you, Scott, or Julian, drop > it, whatever it is. If it is something good let's talk about it *after* > 4408bis is on standards track. It's not a secret thing, it's just that I've discussed some of Julian's ideas with him as was fleshing them out. Since they are his ideas, I'll wait for him to present them in his draft (which I haven't seen yet either). My only point was that if you're going to reject the idea, do it after you've seen it, not based on what your guess about what it is based on a title. Scott K From msk@cloudmark.com Wed Nov 30 22:37:48 2011 Return-Path: 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 D079E1F0C5A for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 8IpChP4tzOYi for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht2-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5F01F0C59 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:47 -0800 Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:47 -0800 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: "spfbis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:37:49 -0800 Thread-Topic: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter Thread-Index: Acyv8LU/XfLb71tOS8qJzKZsjMMX5QAAjhkQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SPFbis discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 06:37:48 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:15 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: spfbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter >=20 > I've had my share of back-chamber nobody-knows-what-it-is secret late > surprises in MARID, that was enough. Drop it, you, Scott, or Julian, > drop it, whatever it is. If it is something good let's talk about it > *after* 4408bis is on standards track. > [...] This level of hostility will kill this work before it gets off the ground. But some of us do want to see this proceed. The proposed charter plots a p= ath forward. So if you're still nursing MARID wounds that are this deep, t= hen maybe this isn't the right place for you. -MSK