Subject: [spfbis] Extensions to SPF

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:20:49 -0700

Hi Scott,

Section 1.1 of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-07 has the following sentence:

   "This updated specification is intended to clarify identified
    ambiguities in [RFC4408], resolve techincal issues identified
    in post-RFC 4408 deplyment experience, and document widely
    deployed extensions to SPF that have been developed since [RFC4408]
    was published."

The SPFBIS charter mentions that specifically out-of-scope for the 
working group:

      * Extensions to the SPF protocols.

    Discussion of extensions to the SPF protocols or removal of
    existing features shall only be discussed after completion of
    current charter items in anticipation of rechartering the working
    group.

In the sentence from draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-07, there is "document 
widely deployed extensions to SPF that have been developed since 
[RFC4408] was published".  That does not seem in line with what is in 
in the charter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:33:29 -0400

Elsewhere it says:

> Changes to the SPF 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.

I'll confess that "document widely deployed extensions to SPF that have been 
developed since [RFC4408] was published." is not identical to "addition of any 
enhancements that have already gained widespread support", but I believe the 
meanings are similar enough.  It's the charter basis for adding the 
information about RFC 5451 into 4408bis.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:46:18 -0700

>>     current charter items in anticipation of rechartering the working

When I wrote that, I meant changes to the SPF protocol itself.  That
is, it precludes the idea of adding a mechanism to say "evaluate From:
instead of MAIL FROM".  It wasn't aimed at A-R use.

I also think use of A-R is not part of SPF itself, but rather falls
into the nebulous "local policy" discussion.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:54:26 -0700

> into the nebulous "local policy" discussion.

By that, I mean A-R isn't an extension. In fact, I think the current
draft introduces no extensions to SPF proper.  That means we could
drop the reference to extensions in Section 1, because it's saying
this draft contains something that isn't there.

-MSK

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:00:59 -0400

> this draft contains something that isn't there.

I'm OK either way.

Scott K

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 13:21:04 +0200

On Sat 08/Sep/2012 01:33:29 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> I'll confess that "document widely deployed extensions to SPF that
> have been developed since [RFC4408] was published." is not
> identical to "addition of any enhancements that have already gained
> widespread support", but I believe the meanings are similar
> enough.

I thought an "SPF extension" was a change associated with the
introduction of a new modifier.  We have a registry for those.

Are we going to document SPF extensibility in that sense?

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:54:38 -0400

>Are we going to document SPF extensibility in that sense?

No. That's already documented in a standards track RFC. 4408bis needs to update the registry (recently discussed, but not in -07), but the basic registry doesn't need redocumenting.

Scott K