The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-MAIL, version 1 ' <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt> as an Experimental RFC. In so doing the IESG wishes to draw the community's attention to the IESG note to be inserted in this document. That note says: "The following documents (draft-schlitt-spf-classic, draft-katz-submitter, draft-lyon-senderid-core, draft-lyon-senderid-pra) are published simultaneously as Experimental RFCs, although there is no general technical consensus and efforts to reconcile the two approaches have failed. As such these documents have not received full IETF review and are published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches as they were considered in the MARID working group. The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach and concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG believes that documenting the different approaches does less harm than not documenting them. The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two approaches during the two years following publication, in order that a community consensus can be reached in the future." The IESG has discussed these documents and circumstances at great length, and it has heard many cogent objections to these documents appearing as standards. Given that implementations of both are present in the Internet, however, the IESG has decided that their availability as open specifications is sufficiently valuable to warrant their publication as Experimental RFCs and with the above note. The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.txt Technical Summary Please see the IESG note. Working Group Summary This was originally part of the work of MARID, which was unable to come to consensus on the appropriate set of scopes and facilities for DNS-based email authentication. Because of that lack of consensus, this work is targeted at Experimental, rather than standards track status. It is hoped that additional deployment will help demonstrate which among the proposed scopes and facilities is useful, and that those can later proceed to standards track status. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed for the IESG by Ted Hardie and by the DEA Directorate for the Applications Area Directors. RFC Editor Note Please update the IESG Note with the RFC Numbers when available. IESG Note "The following documents (draft-schlitt-spf-classic, draft-katz-submitter, draft-lyon-senderid-core, draft-lyon-senderid-pra) are published simultaneously as Experimental RFCs, although there is no general technical consensus and efforts to reconcile the two approaches have failed. As such these documents have not received full IETF review and are published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches as they were considered in the MARID working group. The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach and concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG believes that documenting the different approaches does less harm than not documenting them. The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two approaches during the two years following publication, in order that a community consensus can be reached in the future." _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
