On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
The draft-iet-repute-model reference is a down-ref.
I agree, the model document should be considered for PS instead.
A server receiving a query about an application it does not
recognize or explicitly support support
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
draft-ietf-repute-model is a down-ref. I suggest referencing the updated
SPF specification as that specification is said to fix some issues in RFC
4408.
The downref was discussed on another thread.
I left the reference to
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
From Section 3.1:
expires: A timestamp indicating a time beyond which the score
reported is likely not to be valid. Expressed as the number of
seconds since January 1, 1970 00:00 UTC. See Section 5 for
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:24 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
The Privacy Considerations Section focuses on data in transit and
collection of data only. Section 8.1 mentions protecting the data from
unauthorized access and viewing. That would only be unauthorized viewing
while the data is
On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
The WG had a hard time coming up with really good data about what validators
look for, ... If someone else with some busy nameservers wants to provide
different evidence now, it wouldn't hurt.
Out of morbid
Hi Adrian,
Thanks very much.
I can update the nits and editorial issues quickly, but I would like to discuss
more with you for the following points to make things clear before I update the
draft.
=
On 20/08/13 17:01, Joe Touch wrote:
However, see my other message - it's hard to recommend an approach when
we don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
The scenario is simple.
You want admin to open one port in the firewall when the project is
started. Going through the
At 23:53 20-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I don't believe so. The only cases we can think of are those where
the supported application does or does not exist, and the service
being queried does or does not have data about the
subject. Elsewhere we describe that there's a specific
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:43 AM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Why is that?
The media type is text/plain.
Ah. I realize that CRLF is standard line termination for SMTP; is it
automatically the expected line termination for all line-oriented
protocols? I don't know about others.
-MSK
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:30:41AM -0700 Quoting S
Moonesamy (sm+ietf@elandsys.c
My reading of the SPFBIS Charter is
Hi Fatai,
I think you nicely answered your own questions :-)
I would suggest adding a small section including all of the statements you made
in your email. (Well, no need to refer to Berlin and the CCAMP chairs :-)
Cheers,
Adrian
From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfa...@huawei.com]
Sent: 21
On 21 aug 2013, at 09:17, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
The WG had a hard time coming up with really good data about what validators
look for, ... If someone else with some busy nameservers wants to
Patrik,
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table.
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am
having a difficult time understanding the logic, even so. The *hard*
part
So your point is that their conclusions that nobody has the record
installed is false?
Eliot
On 8/21/13 12:42 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 21 aug 2013, at 12:26, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
The easy part was supposed to be people actually using the SPF record, once
it was out there.
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:00:56 Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1)
to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:30:41AM -0700 Quoting S
Moonesamy
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-repute-model-07
Reviewer: Roni
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
Name servers already have access controls down to the granuality
of TYPE. If this draft proceeds as currently described it is forcing
name server vendors to access controls at the sub TYPE granuality.
With SPF lookup first I can specify the SPF policy
No hat
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:26:51PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
Actually, that _was_ in question. Remember, part of the justification
for ditching TYPE99 is not only that publishers don't use it, but also
that if they
On 08/21/2013 03:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Speaking as the SPFBIS co-chair…
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:55:33AM -0700, manning bill wrote:
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs observations that not all TXT
== SPF). In the mean time, declare a suspension of
last call to gauge
On Tue 20/Aug/2013 07:27:12 +0200 David Conrad wrote:
On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:14 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
one lesson i might take from this is, if i want to deploy a new
hack which needs an rrtype, not to use txt in the interim.
Nor the same format, IMHO.
My personal belief is
Kathleen,
Great idea, great job!
Congratulations.
Best regards,
as
On 8/21/13 10:16 AM, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
Hello,
Sometime before Berlin, I had suggested the use of a video to provide an
overview of current work within a working group to see if that might
I also agree with James and Lorenzo.
Owen
On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:58 PM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 02:39 , Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
[...] It seems to me that the sheer length of the list, and the fact that is
not prioritized, create a real
On 8/21/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 20/08/13 17:01, Joe Touch wrote:
However, see my other message - it's hard to recommend an approach when
we don't understand the problem you're trying to solve.
The scenario is simple.
You want admin to open one port in the firewall when the
On 8/21/2013 12:50 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
...
You want admin to open one port in the firewall when the project is
started. Going through the corporate process at this point is bearable
and makes sense.
Afterwards, you want to be able to expose arbitrary services through
that port without
On 21/08/13 17:12, Joe Touch wrote:
The real problem here IMO is how to distinguish between adding a
completely new application -- which should require approval process --
and adding a new component within an existing distributed application
-- which should be managed by devs themselves.
IMO
On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
My conclusion is that a statement that nobody queries for it is false.
I am curious if the folks who did the analysis of query rates know the answers
to the following questions:
1. Per unit of mail delivered (as opposed to
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 09:39:28 Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
* To what extent has that happened?
I'm not the shepherd, but it is undeniable that most current-era
shipping DNS servers support RRTYPE 99.
The operational issues I've encountered with actually trying to use RRTYPE99
in
On 8/21/2013 8:31 AM, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 21/08/13 17:12, Joe Touch wrote:
The real problem here IMO is how to distinguish between adding a
completely new application -- which should require approval process --
and adding a new component within an existing distributed application
--
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 23:32:33 Mark Andrews wrote:
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
This is not a shock. You were in the rough when we discussed it in the WG
too.
Name servers already have access controls down to the granuality
of TYPE. If this draft proceeds as currently
Eliot Lear wrote:
Patrik,
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the table.
However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are happening.
What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I must admit I am
having a difficult time understanding the logic,
At 04:55 21-08-2013, manning bill wrote:
regarding adoption
it would be interesting to
take a second snapshot from each of these servers in about six months
to see if the trend has changed (modulo PAFs
observations that not all TXT == SPF). In the
mean time, declare a suspension of
last
Patrik,
On 8/21/2013 7:17 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
My conclusion is that a statement that nobody queries for it is
false.
Assuming that your conclusion is based on pragmatics and not
mathematical purity -- that is, that it is concerned with significant
operational effort, rather than a
Actually, I just checked. Right now, none of them seem to publish SPF RRtype
records.
Yahoo doesn't even publish a TXT record containing SPF information. An
argument could
be made that if we really wanted to push the adoption of SPF RRtypes, getting
Google,
Yahoo and Hotmail to publish SPF
On 8/15/2013 6:23 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
I totally agree. In fact, in the update to the TCP roadmap [1], we
added TCPMUX to the section on Historic and Undeployed Extensions,
though it definitely bears further discussion than is currently in the
roadmap. I think we should add a reference to
On 21 aug 2013, at 19:31, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Assuming that your conclusion is based on pragmatics and not
mathematical purity -- that is, that it is concerned with significant
operational effort, rather than a stray implementation here or there,
which counts as noise in any
On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:44 AM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote:
This would require some reason why it is worth them spending time and
money to do something that has no operational benefit whatsoever.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to make an argument for you to refute. I'm saying that
if the people
On 8/21/2013 11:13 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been published.
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
d/
--
Dave
On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part
of the IETF last call. No hat.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dave
On 21 aug 2013, at 20:29, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:13 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been
published.
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
As per a suggestion in another thread: Would you also say that this
draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard? This is more
architectural overview than protocol per-se, but I do think it is
necessary to the understanding of the other protocol documents (hence it
is a normative
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 14:44:41 Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
I'm not going to copy the spfbis WG list on this, because this is part
of the IETF last call. No hat.
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:04:10PM -0700,
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me
The following mostly are points that I raised within the group's mailing
list discussion, during charter development. In my view, they have not
yet been adequately resolved:
On 8/21/2013 10:52 AM, The IESG wrote:
Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg
at ietf.org) by
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The following mostly are points that I raised within the group's mailing
list discussion, during charter development. In my view, they have not yet
been adequately resolved:
On 8/21/2013 10:52 AM, The IESG wrote:
+ iesg
-iesg-secretary
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
The following mostly are points that I raised within the group's mailing
list discussion, during charter development.
On Aug 21, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
use a particular telephone number for an incoming call has no obvious and
it'd actually be kind of nice if the focus was NOT on the (us)
10-digit number, but instead on the 'identity' making the call.
There's a
I noticed in a few places the suggestion to replace telephone number
with 'identity'.
I think that this is a particularly bad enhancement given how widely the
term identity is understood by most people.
In RFC 6973 we defined the term (which is inline with many of the
identity management
On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:51:31AM -0400 Quoting Scott
Kitterman (scott@kitterma
Apparently.
Translated:
RFC 4408
Hi Patrik,
At 11:58 20-08-2013, Patrik Fältström wrote:
As the bottle is opened, I hereby state my
objection to Section 3.1 of
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19 for the reasons
explained below. I do agree (as stated below)
that the section of RFC 4408 that specify how to
use both SPF and TXT
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 22:05:37 Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1)
to Proposed Standard Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 08:51:31AM -0400 Quoting
Scott
On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness
In message 7917527.VmCQD3a6Q3@scott-latitude-e6320, Scott Kitterman writes:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 23:32:33 Mark Andrews wrote:
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
This is not a shock. You were in the rough when we discussed it in the WG
too.
Name servers already have
In this conversation between Pete and Dave, there's one point that's
come up which has come up often enough that I want to call it out
separately for comment:
the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not
participating in the conversation.
You think I could bully Patrik?
On 08/21/2013 11:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The general point is that the new people whom we want
to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat
each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool.
Yes, that is a factor that merits attention.
But not the
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews writes:
It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly what it
is, a TXT record.
I can hand update of A and records to the machine.
I can hand update of MX records to the mail adminstrator.
I can
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender
Policy?Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to
Proposed Standard Date: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:52:59PM -0400 Quoting Scott
Kitterman (scott@kitterma
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 22:05:37
Hello,
Lars Eggert mentioned [1] the following:
cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion, and try
to provide data/facts for your different standpoints, so the
rest of us who are sitting on the sidelines watching the
fireworks can form an opinion.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly
what it
is, a TXT record.
I can hand update of A and records to the machine.
I can hand update of MX
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 7917527.VmCQD3a6Q3@scott-latitude-e6320, Scott Kitterman
writes:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 23:32:33 Mark Andrews wrote:
I object to the removal of the SPF record.
This is not a shock. You were in the rough when we discussed it in
the WG
Hi Eliot,
At 03:26 21-08-2013, Eliot Lear wrote:
First, I appreciate that you and Dave are bringing data to the
table. However, in this case, it is not in dispute that queries are
happening. What *is* in dispute is whether there are answers. I
must admit I am having a difficult time
In message 0c3746c3-dac1-471f-bd07-8faf20481...@email.android.com, Scott
Kitterman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
It's primarily an issue for applications. To the DNS, it's exactly
what it
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 14:44:41 Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
What I want the IESG to add a note to the document is that says something
like the following: The retirement of SPF from specification is not to be
taken that new RRtypes can not be used by applications, the
Scott,
On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote:
You could publish:
example.com IN TXT v=spf1 redirect=_spf.example.com
_spf.example. com IN TXT v=spf1 [actual content here]
Then delegate _spf.example.com to the mail administrator. Problem solved.
Wouldn't
NB: I have read the rest of the thread; but this is what deserves a reply:
Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
(There may have been a miscommunication here -- what particular AD
function Pete was speaking in; but to
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 09:31:03 Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 0c3746c3-dac1-471f-bd07-8faf20481...@email.android.com, Scott
Kitterman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20130821214832.1c92538c0...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
It's primarily an
Hi John,
At 20:02 21-08-2013, John Leslie wrote:
If this is the sort of response given to somewhat-valid questions
raised about the draft being proposed, Pete will eventually have to
say there _is_ no consensus. :^(
An Area Director may say that. :-(
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 00:26:35 Måns Nilsson wrote:
...
SPF is a flagship case for the use a TXT record and continue to IPO
fast and sloppy crowd. It needs correcting. Badly.
Which IPO was that?
BTW, in 2003 the choice was use TXT or nothing. So it was a crowd that wanted
to accomplish
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Updates to DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Options for Access Network Discovery and
Selection Function (ANDSF) Discovery'
draft-boucadair-rfc6153-update-01.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
The JOSE WG will have three upcoming interim virtual meetings:
Wednesday, September 4th
Monday, September 16th
Monday, September 30th
All of these meetings will occur at: 2300 UTC time slot (4 pm PDT, 7 pm EDT)
The goal of these meetings will be to address issues in the issue
tracker.
Detailed
71 matches
Mail list logo
