> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott > Kitterman > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:02 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-09.txt > > 1. If the DKIM and SPF drafts are supposed to be supported by this > draft, then the discussion on reporting address discovery is > inadequate. Those drafts enable domains to explicitly publish reporting > addresses, so the heuristics for address discovery in this draft are > inappropriate for those types of reports. > > My preferred solution to this problem would be to separate them again > (not providing a recommended diff since it's just reverting some of the > changes in the last update).
That's one option. Another is to indicate that for automatic reports, a specific reporting address SHOULD be advertised by the party requesting the reports, and then refer to the two reporting drafts as examples. > 2. Strongly suggesting use of SPF is, in my opinion, not appropriate in > a general document like this. The current text adds up to SHOULD use > SPF. The way it was before (IIRC), SPF only came up in the SPF draft. > I suspect a general SHOULD SPF is going to be a hard sell in a > standards track document that's not limited in scope to domains already > interested in SPF. > > 3. Due to now saying senders SHOULD use SPF in the envelope sender > selection paragraph, the reference to RFC 4408 needs to be normative > now. > > My solution for #2 and #3 is the same as #1. The SPF-specific text (i.e., the last paragraph of the AS Section 9.2) could be moved back to the SPF document, with more generic text left behind in the AS so that it addresses the problem without naming SPF specifically. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
