Subject: [spfbis] Publication request for draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-17

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:53:40 -0700

Hi Pete,

The SPFBIS working group requests publication of 
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-17.  The Document Shepherd Write-Up is below.

Summary

   S. Moonesamy is the Document Shepherd for this document. Pete Resnick
   is the Responsible Area Director.

   draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis describes version 1 of the Sender Policy
   Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby Administrative Management Domains
   can explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use its domain
   names, and a receiving host can check such authorization.

   The working group was chartered to produce a document as a Proposed
   Standard defining the SPF protocol based upon RFC 4408 (Experimental).

Review and Consensus

  This document is a product of the SPFBIS working group, and has been
  through a large number of revisions including a complete reorganization
  of the document.  The working group dealt with a number of controversial
  topics.  The following outlines how those were resolved:

     There was an intermediate conclusion about the topic of whether the SPF
     protocol should use the SPF RRTYPE or the TXT resource record.  It was
     followed by an objection.  After discussion of the topic at the IETF 83
     SPFBIS WG session the conclusion reached was that the decision would be
     not to publish RRTYPE 99 and and not to query RRTYPE 99.  The WG
     consensus about the RRTYPE can be described as particularly rough.  The
     topic of obsoleting the SPF RRTYPE generated a lot of controversy near
     the end of the WGLC.  There were a very high number of messages about
     the topic on the SPFBIS mailing list and the DNSEXT mailing list as some
     DNSEXT WG participants were not aware of RFC 6686.

     The topic of whether the SPF protocol has to reject mail or not when
     the result of the evaluation is "Fail" was actively discussed.  It
     was determined that it was a matter of local policy.

     There was discussion about standardizing the "best guess" heuristics to
     guess possible SPF policies for domains that do not publish an SPF record.
     The WG consensus was not to standardize the heuristics.

     The topic of mail forwarding and mailing lists in respect to the SPF
     protocol was not too controversial in comparison with the other
     controversies.  The WG consensus was to have the document discuss about
     the topic in a non-normative manner.

     There was some controversy about whether the use of macros was a
     security risk and whether to deprecate the PTR feature.  There was a
     formal appeal of the SPFBIS WG chair' interpretation of the charter,
     specifically regarding the removal of "unused" features.  The two
     features in particular which drove the appeal were the PTR feature
     and the local-part macro feature.  These features were not removed
     from the document given that the appeal was denied by the Responsible
     Area Director.

     There was significant discussion about whether to use the
     "Received-SPF:" header field or whether to use the
     "Authentication-Results" header field to record the results of a SPF
     evaluation.  The working group decided to add both header fields in
     the document as they are in common use.

     There was a suggestion to reorganize the document.  It was argued that
     the document had become somewhat bloated with documentation of nuance
     and other text that has nothing to do with defining a protocol and
     enabling interoperability.  This led to a stalemate.  Based on the
     discussion during the SFPBIS WG session at IETF 85 the WG decided to
     proceed with a reorganization of the document while ensuring that the
     reorganization did  not create any text changes apart from moving text
     around.

   There is rough consensus within the SPFBIS WG to publish the document.

   There are multiple existing implementations of the SPF protocol.  The
   document was reviewed by the SPFBIS working group.  Dave Crocker,
   Stuart Gathman, Murray Kucherawy, John Levine,  Hector Santos,
   Andrew Sullivan, Arthur Thisell, and Alessandro Vesely reviewed the
   document.  Simon Perreault helped to clarify the meaning of IPv4 mapped
   IPv6 addresses.  Murray Kucherawy deserves a special mention for his
   contributions.

   The document was reviewed by Cyrus Daboo on behalf of the Applications
   Area Directorate.   Meral Shirazipour reviewed the document for Gen-ART
   and Phillip Hallam-Baker performed the Security Directorate review.

   I suggest further review of the document from a DNS perspective.

Intellectual Property

   The author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
   required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and
   BCP 79 have already been filed.

   The working group was informed about an IPR disclosure filed for
   RFC 4408 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1698/ ) before the
   WGLC.  There wasn't any noteworthy discussion about the IPR
   disclosure.

Other Points

   There is a downward reference to RFC 1983.

   RFC 5598 is already in the DOWNREF registry.  The US-ASCII reference
   is already used in standards track documents.

   IANA action is requested to update the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs
   registry.  The "Received-SPF:" header field is being added to the
   Permanent Message Header Field Registry.  IANA is requested to
   update the SPF Modifier Registry.  The document does not create
   any IANA registries.

   An automated check of the ABNF in Appendix A was performed.

   Id-nits lists a non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN, six non-RFC5735-compliant
   IPv4 addresses and one instance of a private range IPv4 address.
   These warnings can be ignored.  The warning about CFWS is incorrect.
   The reference to RFC 2671 is intentional;  the document also
   references RFC 6891.

   Some WG participants have mentioned that they may express extreme
   discontent about the decision to obsolete the SPF RRTYPE during
   the Last Call.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:12:41 -0500

> draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-17.  The Document Shepherd Write-Up is below.

Thanks SM. The secretariat has put it in my "Publication Requested" 
queue. I will get it reviewed ASAP, hopefully by the end of the week. If 
we can get the Last Call out in the next week or so, with luck it might 
even make the first IESG telechat after Berlin.

Thanks to everyone for the hard work.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478