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. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
