In <04c801c56f00$2578e410$6c62fea9(_at_)ibmrkydk2ufvdd> "John Glube"
<jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca> writes:
|From: Frank Ellermann
|Sent: June 11, 2005 6:05 PM
|
|John Glube wrote:
|
|> * The IESG is only going to approve the protocol for SPFv1,
|> which attempts to document what has been done in the field
|> as an experimental document.
|
|See subject, they're free to pick any ridiculous status they
|like. We had this debate already, hundreds of thousands
|domains, several independent implementations, practical use
|for at least 15 months (taking the AOL experiment as
|"start").
|
|And if that's an _experiment_ I would ask them in public why
|something like 3066bis incompatible with some aspects of
|3066 should be the new "BCP 47" without any prior practical
|tests.
|
|Talking about double-standards, it's about their
|credibility.
Hmm ... The IESG considered that SPFv1 was best suited for
experimental status when it called for individual
submissions last October after closing MARID.
The best I can tell, the IESG said no such thing. The AD and the
co-chairs called for the "editors of existing working group drafts put
forward their documents as non-working group submissions for
Experimental RFC status." I think this is likely to be an important
distinction because think that, by not making the recommendation, most
IESG members haven't seriously considered the issue.
Note that normally only I-Ds in the form of
draft-ietf-<WorkGroupName>-<title> would be considered a "working
group draft", while all other I-Ds would not. Since
draft-mengwong-spf-* was never a draft-ietf-marid-* document, I don't
think it was ever adopted by the MARID WG. One IESG member (not Ted)
gave a rational explanation that, while SPF-classic may have never
been adopted by MARID, it does fall into the problem space that the WG
covered. Of course, SPF-classic covers different identities than the
MARID protocol, so I don't see it conflicting. The choice for
advancing to standard track should not be "SPF-classic vs the MARID
protocol" any more than the choice should be "putting locks on doors
vs putting locks on windows".
The MARID protocol covers the RFC2822 identities, and competes with
thinks like the DK, IIM and META-signature proposals.
The difficulty is that it seems those who have done actual
large scale testing of SPFv1 don't agree with the analysis
that the "protocol works."
I am referencing the MAAWG document filed as an Internet
Draft dealing with SPF.
If you are referring to draft-newton-maawg-spf-considerations-00.txt,
then I am missing any claim in the document that SPFv1 doesn't work.
In particular, section 6.3.1 outlines the steps from moving from
initial publication with ?all to -all.
As well, if you read what Andy Newton, Carl Hutzler and John
Levine recently wrote on the Marid mailing list and in
particular Andy Newton's suggestion about a framework
approach, reading between the lines, I will reiterate my
conclusion:
"we have learned a lot with SPFv1 - useful as an aid in
filtering, yes - but for anything else, no."
I disagree with conclusion.
I appreciate that this may be a hard pill to swallow for
many, despite all the hard work done to date, but this is
why I suggest SPFv1 will only be granted experimental status
by the IESG.
It may very well be true that the IESG will not grant the spf-classic
I-D as a standard track document. Personally, I would give it no more
than a 25% chance. That doesn't mean that asking for standard track
status is not a good and useful thing to do. In particular, it sets
the mindset of the IESG members that some people consider it ready,
where as asking for experimental status would imply that even the
draft authors don't think it is ready. Also, the requirements for the
data that needs to be collected for standard track approval appears to
have been a very vague concept, and by forcing the issue, I am also
forcing the solidification of this "lessons learned" document.
Two things:
* As to the agreement which I reference, ask Meng.
If you know how to get Meng to answer questions, please let me know.
From what I can tell, Meng has moved on from the SPF project, most
likely to the Karma projected. MarkL has stated that all input to his
SPF I-D was public and Meng made no comments on his I-D. The feedback
I have received from Meng on my SPF I-D as been very minimal, and has
come only after working very hard to get him to respond at all.
-wayne