Well, I've decided to release the latest and greatest version of the
SPF spec. The reviews on the IETF lists have not generated as many
suggested corrections as the -00 review made earlier this year, and
even the discussions here seem to be slowing down.
My plans are as follows:
On Wednesday, there will be an SPF council meeting that needs to
review a few more things that we didn't get to in the last meeting.
On Friday, the two week pseudo-last-call will end in the IETF lists.
I will collect any further comments and publish a last -02preXX
release over the weekend.
Next Monday, I will submit the I-D to the IETF for review as a
Standard Track RFC. As was predicted, there has been some pushback
from the IESG about switching from an Experimental status. The IESG
will make the final call on what status the I-D will be published as,
but I think it has been productive to try for Standard Track. If
nothing else, it has made the IESG aware that we feel that we have a
stable spec that we will be pushing forward on. The IESG has made
mention that they want to see "data collected" on the SPF protocol, so
we may well need to write up a "lessons learned" document before we
can advance to a Standard Track RFC.
The drafts are in the same place as last time:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre1.html
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre1.txt
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre1.nr
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre1.xml
A diff and a wdiff between this version and the previous version
(-01) can be found at:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/changes_from_draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.xml.diff.txt
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/changes_from_draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.xml.wdiff.txt
Changes from -01:
* The abstract now mentions both the MAIL FROM and HELO identities.
* In section 2.3 "Publishing Authorization", it now makes it clear
that publishing is optional.
* The semantics of the "SoftFail" result have been recast from
Receiver Policy to Sender Policy.
* The semantics of the "PermError" result have been updated to match
the resolution passed by the SPF council. Basically, it now longer
gives any Receiver Policy, unlike -01 which said it should be
"treated similar to SoftFail", or the mengwong-spf-* drafts that say
that "PermError MUST be treated as None".
* A note to the RFC editor was made indicating that the SPF DNS RR
type number should be added to the draft once the IANA has made an
allocation.
* the ip4-network ABNF has been fixed to give the ABNF of the
dotted-quad format, rather than just using words to explain it.
* The ABNF for the Received-SPF header now shows that it ends with a
CRLF.
* The "scope" keyword-value pair has been renamed to "identity"
* The "exp=" modifier no longer counts toward the DoS DNS lookup
limits.
* In section 10.5 "Untrusted Information Sources", the explanation
about explanation strings going to only the sender has been fixed to
not that in some cases, it can go to other people.
-wayne