Subject: [spfbis] Comments on draft-kitterman-4408bis-00

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 07:39:37 -0500

[Resubmitted from the proper membership address]

Other than the following extremely minor comment, I saw no substantial 
change to this SPF-BIS draft in regards to the SPF protocol.

Maybe its just me, but I see too much usage of the term MEMO for what 
is otherwise a RFC update for a proposed technical specification.   In 
1.1, it says::

     The protocol was originally documented in [RFC4408], which this
     memo replaces.

As far as I am concern, SPF-BIS I-D is not a MEMO A.K.A. Memorandum. 
It is an
technical and/or functional specification depending on your 
discipline. I suggest text change to strengthen what this document 
really is:

    The protocol was originally documented in [RFC4408], which this
    [new] specification (or document) updates and replaces.

Perhaps a correction or errata to SPF-BIF might be described as a MEMO 
or perhaps an Informational RFC, but this is a complete draft standard 
update for a proposed protocol specification - not a piece of a MEMO 
per se.  Other than this nit, I did a complete compare and saw nothing 
that is of substance to write about.

However, IMO, there are plenty of practical SPF-BIS material that 
should be considered that was learned over the decade.  As an early 
adopter,I would like the opportunity to describe and outline these 
SPF-BIS material suggestions if there is interest.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com