Re: [spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Fri, 17 May 2013 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834E721F93D8 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGek3PQ3o7q3 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83CB21F93D1 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B644D20E411A; Fri, 17 May 2013 03:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1368775588; bh=SQbck6MVap23ka5dQCvGr0Tkc8uymO+neiRCmL9I2m8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=e4m2G7/B+Ga1Zw9u3WVLyzwVlt2KMuagk55F/W0/vbPW7dlH7jujIIDUNsnvLTmpD 2yiC9eGN3k3WyWKsHBkfcLCoK20G7faewC4Cv9hNBwHcxLsFhA6/QkuVQhcthoip7t E9X2w57K1WOk2YbBmNbjjVc67Cax7zhFy949sPGo=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FE4820E40C6; Fri, 17 May 2013 03:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 03:26:19 -0400
Message-ID: <2757085.At1oRR7laG@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-21-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130430112315.0a7ee3e8@elandnews.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130430112315.0a7ee3e8@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Fwd: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 07:26:53 -0000

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:24:00 AM S Moonesamy wrote:
> >Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:58:48 -0400
> >From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> >To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>,
> >         draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis.all@tools.ietf.org,
> >         "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
> >Subject: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14
> >
> >
> >I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> >ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
> >IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
> >security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
> >these comments just like any other last call comments.
> >
> >
> >The document is clear and describes the SPF mechanism effectively. 
> >The only quibble that I could find is that repeated mentions are 
> >made of limiting the number of 'DNS queries' without specifying 
> >whether these are individual queries or recursive. The count will 
> >come out rather differently if looking up 
> >TXT/<http://x.example.com>x.example.com counts as one lookup or 
> >three. I think it is reasonably clear that this is one but could not 
> >find an explicit statement to that effect.

I'm not aware of anyone ever thinking it was three.  I'd appreciate advice on 
addressing this.

Scott K