Hi Ned,
At 15:33 19-04-2014, Ned Freed wrote:
>Given that this issue is a forseeable - and forseen - consequence of
>using SPF,
>and given there's an effective, but not exactly obvious, solution to the
>problem, why are we going forward with publication of SPFBIS as a proposed
>standard (currently in AUTH48) without a companion document describing this
>problem and at least the corresponding solution space, if not going so far as
>to document a specific solution?
The document is moving forward because that is what the IETF agreed
to. I suggest discussing the matter with Pete Resnick as soon as
possible if there is a serious issue that has been missed.
You're missing my point. I wasn't proposing that SPFBIS publication be delayed
until this issue could be addressed - although a case can definitely be made
for that.
Rather, I was pointing out that we should not assume that the failure to
clearly document known interoperability issues (and like it or not, that's what
they are) didn't start with DMARC. A similar, albeit more easily addressed one,
exists in SPFBIS.
OTOH, assuming that this problem is universal is also incorrect. An obvious
counterexample from the same general area is the RRVS specification now in IESG
evaluation. A veritable cornucopia of issues have been raised, some IMO pretty
picayune, a significant number of which have led to the addition of significant
amounts of new text to the document.
I don't know what distinguishes the specifications where such things end up
documented from ones where they don't, but I suspect a number of factors are in
play. What I do know is we have a problem we need to address.
Ned
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822