Subject: Re: [spfbis] #51: Remove A-R from 4408bis

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:45:09 -0700

At 00:59 06-09-2012, spfbis issue tracker wrote:
>#51: Remove A-R from 4408bis
>
>  Message posted by Hector Santos on 3 Sept 2012:
>
>  SUGGESTION: Remove A-R from 4408BIS and all related changes due to it and
>  if we someone believes it is still useful for SPF, then write a I-D for
>  it, perhaps with a title
>
>                Reporting SPF with Authentication-Results
>
>  and this I-D can go into extensive concepts of not only how to write it,
>  but perhaps also how to combine it with other A-R marking for receiver
>  evaluations, etc.
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02593.html

This issue (#51) is related to Issue #10.  I suggest reading Section 
2.4.2 RFC 5451 as it may be relevant to the above suggestion.

Feel free to comment, as usual, on this thread.  The comments which 
have already been posted on the the other threads about this topic 
will also be taken into account.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Sep 2012 16:28:14 -0000

>>  SUGGESTION: Remove A-R from 4408BIS

No, it works fine.  We may want to do an update to 5451 to add more
fields to 5451, but that's a separate issue and not one we can or
should address here.

R's,
John

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:37:45 -0400

> fields to 5451, but that's a separate issue and not one we can or

I don't think its a separate issue because one major reason to 
consider it is to work towards to the automation of MFA (Mail 
Filtering Agents) or "message evaluators".

I agree it would be fine if BIS had one simple sentence:

    "Add Received-SPF and if you like, think about A-R [RFC5451] support."

and then cross fingers that its updated to include the SPF tracing 
required with no kludges as its seems to be been done now using 
comments to get the ip recorded.

My point is that there is should be some standard track, registered 
field names idea of what the A-R fields are going to be that would 
allow for a PnP (Plug and Play) replacement of Recieved-SPF.   Right 
now, its not ready for automated MFA consumers unless we all 
standardized around a current implementator format.  Who do we choose?

I am going through this dilemma right now with looking at A-R support 
and its all deja-vu again when A-R also did not have all the 
information necessary for ADSP (to cover all possible scenarios) and 
we did what was necessary to do that did not quite match RFC5451.

Same will happen with A-R.  Is it ready or not for SPF support?  YES, 
it can be for Human Reporting.  NO for Automated MFAs.

-- 
HLS

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:12:32 -0700

>standardized around a current implementator format.  Who do we choose?

Any work on RFC 5451 is not within the scope of SPFBIS in my 
individual opinion.  Alessandro Vesely proposed some text ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02641.html ) 
and suggested closing Issue #51.  I'll suggest the following as a way 
for the draft to progress towards WGLC.  I'll close this issue.  The 
WG can discussion about the text for Section 7 on the thread about 
that section.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy