Hi Hector,
At 07:29 22-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
Besides the SPF type issue, I believe there are still a number of
integrated protocol issues to address. How does the following RFCs
play into SPFBIS output, the SPF type and the overall BIS document?
Should RFC4408BIS update any of these documents?
[1] RFC4405 SUBMITTER SMTP Service Extension
[2] RFC4406 Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail
[3] RFC4407 Purported Responsible Address (PRA)
I would say no as the above RFCs are not related to
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19. I'll mention the following text from RFC 6686:
"The experiments comprising the series of RFCs defining the
SUBMITTER SMTP extension (RFC4405), the Sender ID mechanism
(RFC4406), the Purported Responsible Address algorithm (RFC4407),
and SPF (RFC4408), should be considered concluded.
That is the official position of the IETF. I can state that the text
reflects the consensus of the SPFBIS WG as I verified whether there
was working group agreement before requesting the publication of RFC
6686. The following text is from RFC 6686:
"This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)."
From an IETF perspective that's the answer that will be given.
For example:
In RFC 4406 (SenderID), section 3.1 says:
This section replaces the definition of the version identifier in
Section 4.5 of [RFC4408] and adds the concept of SPF record scopes.
In section 4.4, item 1:
1. If any records of type SPF are in the set, then all records of
type TXT are discarded.
Overall,
1) Do SenderID publishers need to drop the SPF type as well?
2) Do PRA/SUBMITTER compliant receivers need to also drop SPF type queries?
3) Do SMTP vendors need to begin dropping SUBMITTER as well?
Somebody can submit a draft which answers those questions and have it
discussed in the IETF. The SPFBIS WG Chairs have mentioned that once
the work on draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis is completed the SPFBIS WG will
be ready to close (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10124.html
). I don't think that the SPFBIS WG will take on the draft. The
person submitting the draft can contact the Application Area
Directors to find out where to discuss the draft.
Procedurally, does SPFBIS need to address or take over these
multiple protocols integration concerns (including SMTP SUBMITTER
receivers) or should it just remain silent and allow vendors make a
guess at all this? What is the SPF summary in this regard for the
application integrator?
Procedurally, the SPFBIS WG does not need to address that (see above
comments). SPFBIS will remain silent and allow vendors to make a
guess. The SPF summary is that it is out of scope for
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.
Should the IETF consider a new SenderID WG to discuss what are the
repercussions the SPFBIS results have on it?
The above question is about a SenderID BoF. I personally do not
think that there is currently interest in having that BoF (see RFC 5434).
Regards,
S. Moonesamy