At 04:55 21-08-2013, manning bill wrote:
regarding adoption? it would be interesting to
take a second snapshot from each of these servers in about six months
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs
observations that not all TXT == SPF). In the
mean time, declare a suspension of
last call to gauge if the presumption of failure
of the SPF RR merits this drastic action.
The IETF chartered the SPFBIS WG to deliver:
(i) A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment and its
conclusions to the IESG for publication.
(ii) A standards track document defining SPF, based on RFC4408
and as amended above, to the IESG for publication.
There is a message from the Responsible Area
Director (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00331.html
) and the SPFBIS Chairs (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg00355.html
) about (i). The SPFBIS WG was asked to make a
good-faith effort and that is what the working group did.
The editor of RFC 6686 did a good job. The IESG
approved the publication of the draft. The
working group worked on its second deliverable
(ii) after that. There wasn't any concern about
the TXT RR as the matter was considered as
resolved in RFC 6686. I asked DNSEXT about the
SPF RRTYPE in the (IANA) DNS Parameters registry
(
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03412.html
). It generated long threads on several IETF
mailing lists. It was unusual to have that
amount of comments after the end of a WGLC.
Suspending the Last Call for six months is a
drastic action. I would ask the Responsible Area
Director to consider that if the SPFBIS WG did
not make a good-faith effort or if there is an
issue with the process that was followed. My
opinion is that the SPFBIS WG made a good-faith
effort. There are at least three Area Directors
reading the SPFBIS mailing list. They did not flag any process-related issue.
At 07:03 21-08-2013, Jelte Jansen wrote:
Just wondering, could OARC's recent DITL data help? (perhaps if only to
see whether another large-scale targeted effort is needed)
Yes. Someone also has to do the work.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)