Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 08/Dec/11 19:21, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely >> >>>> SPFbis: I'm waiting for the charter discussion to settle out so >that >>>> I know how to deal with the downref issue to RFC 4408. If the >charter >>>> lands the way I think it will, I think allowing a downref is >>>> justifiable. >>> >>> Some coordination can be fruitful here. For example, if there will >be >>> methods to report certain circumstances to the domain owners, then >some >>> features of SPF that are only used for monitoring those >circumstances >>> could be safely deprecated. Contribution to such monitoring is >>> spontaneous and consenting in either case, but decoupling it from >SPF >>> checking may remove an impediment toward broader adoption. >> >> We have a few options here: >> >> a) Downgrade spf-reporting to Experimental. >> >> b) Pursue spf-reporting publication on the Standards Track, >> acknowledging the downref. >> >> c) Pursue spf-reporting publication on the Standards Track, >> referencing SPFbis instead of RFC4408. This will cause >> spf-reporting to be held by the RFC Editor until SPFbis publishes, >> but it's still a path forward. > >I'd vote for option (c). SPFbis is not expected to bring fundamental >changes to the protocol. However, together with spf-reporting it can >compose enough of an innovation to imply some sort of revision by most >alive implementations. > >Early adopters of authfailure-report can already see that SPF is one >of the methods provided for, and code or plan accordingly. > >> It all depends on how much uptake we get in the short term. If >> there isn't any, we might give (a) some serious consideration. >> Same for dkim-reporting. > >I'd figure dkim-reporting can get out more or less together with >authfailure-report. My plan is to work towards option (b) unless there's some better consensus developed around one of the other choices. Option (a) would require an update later after 4408bis is published. Since there's almost no chance (given the way the SPFbis charter discussions are going) that 4408bis will be materially different relative to this group's work, I think such an update wouldn't be a low value added use of time. Similarly, I think waiting for 4408bis to publish would be pointless waiting. I'm aware of likely implementors and waiting won't help them either. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
