Hello,
This message has a Bcc to an IETF participant.
In my write-up for the Responsible Area Director I mentioned that:
"There was an intermediate conclusion about the topic of whether the SPF
protocol should use the SPF RRTYPE or the TXT resource record. It was
followed by an objection. After discussion of the topic at the IETF 83
SPFBIS WG session the conclusion reached was that the decision would be
not to publish RRTYPE 99 and and not to query RRTYPE 99. The WG
consensus about the RRTYPE can be described as particularly rough. The
topic of obsoleting the SPF RRTYPE generated a lot of controversy near
the end of the WGLC. There were a very high number of messages about
the topic on the SPFBIS mailing list and the DNSEXT mailing list as some
DNSEXT WG participants were not aware of RFC 6686."
The WGLC announcement [1] for draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 was sent
on April 9, 2013 and it was mentioned that the WGLC will close on
April 24. I posted my review as document shepherd on April 23 [2]
and looked into the IANA Considerations Section of the draft as there
is a question in the write-up about whether the IANA Considerations
are clear and complete. Something unusual occurred. A very high
number of messages were posted about on a thread about the DNS
Parameters registry [3]. Most of the comments were submitted after
the end of the WGLC. On April 25, the Responsible Area Director [4]
commented that:
"This discussion should have happened at SPFBIS *chartering* time, as it is
crystal clear from the charter that existing features currently
in use in SPF
are not going away. Indeed, the TXT record was specifically
mentioned in the
charter."
In another message he commented [5] that:
"If you think SPFBIS was being superficial in its treatment of this topic
and can identify an argument that was missed, fine."
The thread was left to run in case an argument was missed. The
SPFBIS WG Chairs [6] posted a message on April 30 about "the planned
deprecation of the SPF RRTYPE and whether TXT is an appropriate thing
to use and if it is whether the SPF use of it is ok".
There is the following text in the write-up:
"Some WG participants have mentioned that they may express extreme
discontent about the decision to obsolete the SPF RRTYPE during
the Last Call."
That is a notification to the Responsible Area Director and the other
members of the IESG about the matter.
I reviewed the discussion about the RRTYPE several times in doing the
write-up and after that to determine whether the following is correct:
"The WG consensus about the RRTYPE can be described as particularly rough."
I did not find any problem in the process followed to reach that
conclusion. I read the messages posted on the IETF mailing list [7];
there are around a 100 messages. I didn't notice any messages about
an issue with the above statement.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03347.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03414.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03412.html
4. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03497.html
5. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03507.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03681.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg81609.html