> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of SM > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:01 AM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt> (SPF > Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to > Proposed Standard > > At 08:53 01-03-2012, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >No. The downref is correct. Downrefs are allowed, but have to be > >reviewed (AIUI). I was saying that I think the downref is safe and > >appropriate in this > > The question would be whether the downward reference is in accordance > with BCP 97. It is up to the IESG to consider whether a non-standards > track protocol which has not received full IETF review is in line with > BCP 97. The citation you made from BCP 97 says that the standard needs to be clear and interoperable. In this case, BCP 97 applies to the document under evaluation, not to RFC4408, as the latter is Experimental. The specification contained in RFC4408 has flaws that have long been acknowledged and some new ones that have recently come to light, but despite these it is operationally stable and its output is deterministic, resulting in widespread deployment and numerous interoperating implementations. Given that, I don't believe the proposed standard under consideration fails to meet the requirements of BCP 97. If and when the spfbis working group produces an update that fixes RFC4408, and/or new versions of SPF come out that actually alter the output of SPF, an update to this document that accommodates those changes could be made to keep them aligned, as Barry has already pointed out. -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf