Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:19:16AM -0700 Quoting The IESG (iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx) > > The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to > consider the following document: > - 'Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, > Version 1' > <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2013-09-02. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. I strongly OPPOSE draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt being published as RFC unless substantial parts are reworked. * The charter disallows major protocol changes -- removing the SPF RR type is a direct charter violation; since SPF is being used on the Internet. * The overloading of the TXT record is a hack at best, aimed at circumventing DNS management systems vendors that fail to ship support. Breaking the DNS model with specific resource records is not the way to get better application support. (besides, the major argument at the time was "it's so hard and takes ages to get a RR type", which isn't true anymore and also, the RRtype is allocated, what's the fuss? ) * The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in that they set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring failure. The IESG should send draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 back to spfbis wg and tell the wg that instead of deprecating SPF it should be algorithmically preferred while maintaining support for TXT. Thanks, -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 It was a JOKE!! Get it?? I was receiving messages from DAVID LETTERMAN!! YOW!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature