Fwd: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:00:09 -0500
Newsgroups gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
FYI.  Anyone who's interested in working on updating SPF should really
be subscribed to the SPFbis mailing list.  Since decisions are going to
be made by rough consensus of the people on that list, it would be good
to have more people with a history of involvement in SPF there.

Scott K

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:06:58 -0800
From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Sorry I'm new to this whole email thing, and I failed to attach it.
It's attached here.


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [spfbis] SPFBIS proposed charter

Hello all, and welcome to the SPFbis mailing list.

As usual, our first order of business is to hash out a charter for the
working group.  Many of you have already seen it privately, and it was
circulated and discussed briefly within the APPS area working group
session in Taipei and its mailing list.  Attached is the latest version,
a product of all of the above.

So the usual questions:


-          Does this charter capture an accurate description of the
problem to be solved (in our case, it's really the work to be done)?

-          Is the charter appropriately broad and/or limited in scope?

-          Who is willing to review and comment on documents in the
working group?

-          Who is willing to act as document editor(s)?

-          Who is likely to implement (or, since SPF is already out
there, who is likely to update their implementations to match any
changes in the specs) and participate in interoperability testing?

-          Who is willing to co-chair a working group?

I'll put down my answers as: I agree with the current charter in terms
of its goals and scope, and I also volunteer to review and/or edit
documents, or act as a co-chair.

Our responses to this will be feedback to the APPS area directors as to
whether or not there's enough interest to warrant a BoF in Paris, or
even to skip that step and just charter the working group.

Thanks,
-MSK
spfbis-charter.txt (text/plain, 3.6 KB) 
Working Group Name:
	SPF Update (SPFBIS)

IETF Area:
	Applications Area

Chair(s):
	TBD

Applications Area Director(s):
	Pete Resnick <[email protected]>
	Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>

Applications Area Advisor:
	Pete Resnick <[email protected]>

Mailing Lists:
	General Discussion: [email protected]
	To Subscribe:	    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
	Archive:	    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/

Description of Working Group:
	The Sender Policy Framework (SPF, RFC4408) specifies the publication
	of a DNS record which states that a listed IP address is authorized
	to send mail on behalf of the listing domain name's owner.  SMTP
	servers extract the domain name in the SMTP "MAIL FROM" or "HELO"
	command for confirming this authorization.  The protocol has had
	Experimental status for some years and has become widely deployed.
	This working group will revise the specification, based on deployment
	experience and listed errata, an will seek Standards Track status for
	the protocol.

	The MARID working group created two specifications for publication of 
	email-sending authorization:  Sender-ID (RFFC4405, RFC4406 and RFC4407)
	and SPF (RFC4408), with both having Experimental status.  By using
	IP addresses, both protocols specify authorization in terms of path,
	though unlike SPF, Sender-ID uses domain names found in the header of
	the message rather than the envelope.

	The two protocols rely on the same policy mechanism, namely a
	specific TXT resource record in the DNS.  This creates a basic 
        ambiguity about the interpretation of any specific instance of the TXT 
        record.  Because of this, there were concerns about conflicts between 
        the two in concurrent operation.  The IESG Note added to each invited
	an expression of community consensus in the period following these
	publications.

	Both enjoyed initially large deployments.  Broad SPF use continues,
	and its linkage to the envelope -- rather than Sender-ID's linkage
	to identifiers in the message content -- has proven sufficient among
	operators.  This concludes the experiment.

	Changes to the SPF specification will be limited to the correction
	of errors, removal of unused features, addition of any enhancements
	that have already gained widespread support, and addition of
	clarifying language.

	The working group will also produce a document describing the
	course of the SPF/Sender-ID experiment (defined in the IESG note
	on the RFCs in question), bringing that experiment to a formal
	conclusion.  No other work on Sender-ID will be done.

	Finally, the working group will develop the proposed "scope"
	extension found in draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope.

	Specifically out-of-scope for this working group:

	* Revisiting past technical arguments that were covered
	  in the MARID working group, except where review is reasonably
	  warranted based on operational experience.

	* Discussion of the merits of SPF.

	* Discussion of the merits of Sender-ID in preference to SPF.

	* Extensions to SPF other than the one specified above.  The
	  working group will re-charter to process other specific proposed
	  extensions as they are identified.

	The initial draft set:
		draft-kitterman-4408bis
		draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope

Goals and Milestones:
	MMM YYYY:	A standards track document defining SPF,
			based on RFC4408 and as amended above,
 			to the IESG for publication.

	MMM YYYY:	A document describing the SPF/Sender-ID experiment
			and its conclusions to the IESG for publication.

	MMM YYYY:	A standards track document creating the "scope"
			extension to the IESG for publication.
Attached Message Part (text/plain, 131 B) 
_______________________________________________
spfbis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis