Subject: [spfbis] Discussions about MARID

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:14:00 -0700

Hello,

Discussions about MARID are controversial.  The effect is disruption 
to the work of this working group.  Discussions about MARID are 
off-topic.  I strongly suggest that working group participants 
refrain from posting any comments about MARID or sending replies to 
messages about MARID to the SPFBIS mailing list.

Thank you for your understanding.

S. Moonesamy
SPFBIS WG co-chair

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:02:28 -0400

If you don't want discussions about MARID, then we should stop trying 
to redefine it with a new "Applicability Statement" and with 
rhetorical subjective new ideas long debated and defeated during the 
MARID working group.

MARID is the only defense one has against the onslaught of a new wave 
of SPF application assessments that in my extremely strong engineering 
opinion as an early adopter will change the face of SPF, its value, 
its payoff and utility to not only domains publishing records but to 
receivers that support it.  We don't need more doubt added to SPF and 
I don't quite see how it can be become a IETF standard document with 
such new doubt added long discussed and dealt with in the pass.  One 
thing for sure, it is already an INTERNET standard.  So why we trying 
to change that?

Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Discussions about MARID are controversial.  The effect is disruption to 
> the work of this working group.  Discussions about MARID are off-topic.  
> I strongly suggest that working group participants refrain from posting 
> any comments about MARID or sending replies to messages about MARID to 
> the SPFBIS mailing list.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
> 
> 

-- 
HLS

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:18:56 -0700

Hi Hector,
At 16:02 12-09-2012, Hector Santos wrote:
>If you don't want discussions about MARID, then we should stop 
>trying to redefine it with a new "Applicability Statement" and with 
>MARID is the only defense one has against the onslaught of a new 
>wave of SPF application assessments that in my extremely strong 
>engineering opinion as an early adopter will change the face of SPF, 
>its value, its payoff and utility to not only domains publishing 
>records but to receivers that support it.  We don't need more doubt 
>added to SPF and I don't quite see how it can be become a IETF 
>standard document with such new doubt added long discussed and dealt 
>with in the pass.  One thing for sure, it is already an INTERNET 
>standard.  So why we trying to change that?

The above message is off-topic.  In the message posted at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02823.html I 
suggested refraining from discussing MARID as it is a disruption to 
the work of this working group.  It is unfortunate that the 
suggestion has been ignored.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
SPFBIS WG co-chair

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:07:46 -0400

S Moonesamy wrote:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg02824.html

> suggested refraining from discussing MARID as it is a disruption to the 
> work of this working group.  It is unfortunate that the suggestion has 
> been ignored.

I wish to have a point of WG AD management clarification to address 
the many interrelated issues raised from single issue #29.

Sorry, but I don't believe I am ignoring your request but it is unfair 
to just casll it a CALL without resolved any of the issue issues.  You 
can't just leave it in limbo.  You don't want any MARID engineering 
discussed, yet does that include 9 years of practical experience and 
field experience?  Are we suppose to just ignore all that too?

It is highly irregular to expect real implementators to toss out 
experience in using SPF while the CHAIRS allow the limited few who 
were always militantly against SPF (and still are) are now rehashing 
old MARID debates long settled via RFC documents as if it (SPFBIS) is 
a new timeline with suggestions the mode of SPF rejections was never 
part of the SPF fundamental design philosophy and protocol process and 
there is a new proposed the existence of a new different Applicability 
Statement, including one that touches based with Reputation.

Further, all non-MARID statements are ignored:

   -ALL has a definition for rejection or marking
   ?ALL has RFC2119 language for no rejection

The point people stated that if one wants no rejection, then use ?ALL. 
Not -ALL.

Understand?  IOW you don't need to change SPF because it already 
offers a more relaxed form of marking the message where there is no 
REJECTION.

No, instead, they want -ALL to be relaxed as well and don't want to 
bother with the security impact that it WILL have (issue #33) and when 
its pointed out that SPF does indeed had have semantics for applying 
-ALL, a new issue #60 is created to begin questioning that.

This is absolutely uncalled for.

That is what should be OUT OF SCOPE - reinventing Applied SPF and it 
is completely unfair to long time SPF supporters that use SPF today in 
their product lines.

I wish to have a point of WG AD management clarification to address 
the many interrelated issues among.

How are we to discuss all there inter-related issues all having their 
genesis from issue #29 when the long time opponents of the inherent 
rejection concept in SPF is now being rehashed, disputed and SPFBIS 
being remodeled to a new Reporting Mechanism?

   ISSUE #29  Defining MARK-ON-FAIL

unrequested morphing to:

   ISSUE #33  Marked Failed Mail Exposure (Security Issue)
   ISSUE #58  Local Policy in 4408BIS
   ISSUE #60  Publishing Authorization

Why is all this in question now ll that was asked in issue #29 was to 
define what MARKING the mail meant as opposed to the RFC2219 language 
provided for REJECTION?

-- 
HLS

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:56:18 -0500

On 9/12/12 8:07 PM, Hector Santos wrote:

> I wish to have a point of WG AD management clarification...

Just to close the loop on this since it was specifically addressed to 
me, even though the recent action by the chairs makes some of this moot:

If you wish to discuss process issues (which topics are legitimate to 
discuss on the list, whether other participants are comporting 
themselves professionally or productively, whether the chairs are doing 
their jobs properly), those are *not* topics which should be discussed 
on the WG mailing list. Always start by going to the chairs if you have 
issues with the way things are going on the list. If you are not able to 
resolve an issue with the chairs or think the chairs themselves are 
doing something improper, you may contact me. If someone is misbehaving 
on the list, it is not your job to admonish them (publicly or 
privately), or to fire back with misbehavior of your own; we have chairs 
and ADs so that they can address such problems. But in particular, it is 
inappropriate to start any such discussions on the WG list itself.

Participating on the mailing list takes a civil tongue and a thick skin. 
Please try to employ both.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:14:37 -0700

> Please try to employ both.

which is much preferred, over a thick tongue and civil skin.

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:21:56 -0400

> Always start by going to the chairs if you have issues with
> the way things are going on the list. If you are not able to resolve an
> issue with the chairs or think the chairs themselves are doing something
> improper, you may contact me.

Adding to this:
You may certainly address your concerns to me, as Pete's co-AD, as
well as to Pete, but it's ultimately going to be Pete who handles the
issue, because he's the responsible AD.  I'm following this WG because
I'm interested in it, but I am not the one managing its chairs: Pete
is.

Because of that, it's probably best to just go to Pete, and not to me,
when you need AD intervention.  If Pete is unresponsive, I'll be happy
to help, but I think that will be needed rarely, if ever.

Barry (the other AD)

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:33:55 -0700

> I'm interested in it, but I am not the one managing its chairs: Pete

Hmmm.  Maybe not.  There's a nuance of formal concern here that might 
not make that such a wonderful idea:

      The non-cognizant AD is part of the IESG and hence is in the next 
level in the appeal chain, above the cognizant AD.  If the non-cognizant 
AD has been consulting on the problem, they are not such a neutral 
participant in the IESG review.

      Personally, I'd rather have the second APPS AD stay available for 
the IESG process.

d/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:47:41 -0400

> Hmmm.  Maybe not.

Well, of course, you clipped my second paragraph.

>      The non-cognizant AD is part of the IESG and hence is in the next level
> in the appeal chain, above the cognizant AD.  If the non-cognizant AD has
> been consulting on the problem, they are not such a neutral participant in
> the IESG review.
>
>      Personally, I'd rather have the second APPS AD stay available for the
> IESG process.

Indeed.  That's also part of what I was getting at.  Thanks for
bringing it up specifically.

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:51:35 -0700

> bringing it up specifically.

no. no.  this horse isn't dead yet.  but wait, maybe this will do it...

you didn't actually say anything about being preempted in process terms 
and your opening sentence made the later points rather more marginal 
and, I think, missed the formal process concern that I focused on.

(putting the shovel away.)  there.  fully buried.

d/