On Friday, May 03, 2013 12:46:52 PM Douglas Otis wrote:
On May 3, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Friday, May 03, 2013 12:04:53 PM Douglas Otis wrote:
...
Over many years at attempting to change the course of the SPF process,
this
effort appears to have been futile.
...
It does seem a bit odd for you to claim you're being ignored when the
largest change in SPF processing limits contained in 4408bis was your
suggestion. An alternate interpretation to consider is that the working
group fully considered your inputs and incorporated those that were
appropriate technically and in scope for the charter.
Dear Scott,
This was not directly part of the IETF process, as my input there was
ignored.
As I recall, removal of unlimited recursion occurred after a presentation
made in Boston to the Open Group.
I assume you are referring to some of the pre-IETF activities for SPF.
Recursion based processing limits don't appear in RFC 4408 (and also not in
4408bis).
As with unlimited recursion, the need for the macro functions are also
negligible while posing real risks. This is a serious security concern
still needing to be addressed.
This was discussed in the working group and tracked in the WG issue tracker:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/spfbis/trac/ticket/24
The change mentioned in the ticket is a direct result of your input to spfbis
(referenced in the ticket).
As far as I can tell, this is just a case of "the working group came to a
different conclusion, so I'll whine about it on the main list".
Scott K