Re: Nomination for promotion to "Proposed Standard"

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

At 10:20 AM -0800 10/27/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>Ned,
>
>agree with you on all points, except one.
>
>The gating factor the IETF controls is actually DNS RR numbers - and that is in DNSEXT.
>
>I talked to Ted and Steve (among others) about the RMX thing in Chicago, and agree fully with your analysis of "we need to do something", with "document the cases for which it is broken" being high on the list of "somethings".

In Chicago, the consensus seemed to be that RMX was not useful for anything but
slowing the bounces to email that had been forged, but that the traffic patterns
on that way high enough that it might be worth doing, with a wonking great
statement in front that said "Don't expect much from this".
				Ted







>(idle query: does @acm.org mail forwarding change envelope FROM?)
>
>But I can't fight all battles - so I flipped this one in the direction of the AD who is in charge of the WG that is attached to the control point.
>
>I'd like Thomas to say "no, and here's why" - or get someone else to do that. (Ned, I didn't want to ask you to take charge of this rampaging beast, given that you won't be in Minneapolis, and have other serious distractions....)
>
>                       Harald
>
>--On 27. oktober 2003 00:21 -0800 ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:
>
>>>Raymond,
>>
>>>a request for adoption as a proposed standard must be passed to the IESG,
>>>so you've acted according to the process.
>>
>>>I'm hereby Thomas Narten, who is in charge of the DNSEXT WG, to act as
>>>shepherding AD for this document.
>>
>>>Note: This area has multiple known proposals, and it would probably be
>>>less than optimal if users deploy four or five different types of
>>>sender-authentication records, all of which need large uptake in order to
>>>be reasonably useful. So expect a debate - and it's by no means certain
>>>that the result will be an IETF standard that resembles your document.
>>
>>Harald, I note that the ASRG is actively engaged in trying to reconcile
>>several
>>of the proposals in this area. As such, I think the correct course of
>>action is
>>to direct this person to the ASRG so he can join the debate there. I
>>certainly
>>would act to block this document if it came to a vote, citing existing
>>activity being alreayd underway in this area.
>>
>>Now, perhaps it is inappropriate for the ASRG, a research group, to be
>>undertaking this activity. If that's the case then perhaps we should
>>be thinking about creating a WG to handle this.
>>
>>I also think this proposal has everything to do with MTAs and email
>>operation
>>and little if anything to do with DNS operation. As such, I think
>>assignment of
>>it to DNSEXT is inappropriate. This belongs in apps.
>>
>>I will also add that I have serious misgivings about all of the proposals
>>in
>>this space, but it seems inevitable that one of them, or much worse, more
>>than
>>one of them, is going to see widespread deployment no matter what the
>>IETF does
>>or does not do. (SPF in particular seems to be gaining considerable
>>momentum.)
>>As such, unpleasant though it may be, we need to be thinking in terms of
>>damage
>>control.
>>
>>				Ned