Re: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope

["Hector Santos" <hsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

If I understand all this, I would agree this is the right approach.   This
will allow for the separation, breakdown, usage and implementation of one or
more EPV (End Point Validation) techniques open, patented or otherwise.

I would recommend the following to help faciliate your proposal:

1) Refine RFC 2821 to eliminate conflicts and ambiguities.

1a) What are required and enforcable entities?

2) Refine RFC 2822 to eliminate conflicts and ambiguities.

1a) What are required and enforceable entities?

More so with #1,  I don't believe good progress will be made until RFC 2821
is
cleaned up.  This could be in the same vain as it was done with RFC2476 for
SMTP of applying a more strict transaction process , but it need not go that
far.

With #2, clearing up the ambiguities, like with the Resent-To, etc.
However, I don't see this a major part since it is not an established
requirement unlike the issues in 2821 with HELO and MAIL FROM.

In short, the new draft need to improves upon the hosting requirements and
once this is done, I believe MARID will become more stronger as a plausible
technology to implement.  It will also open the door for new possibilities
as well.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com



----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Newton" <andy@xxxxxx>
To: "IETF MARID WG" <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:37 AM
Subject: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope


>
> It is the opinion of the co-chairs at this time (before the end of last
> call) that the MARID working group has no consensus regarding the
> deployment of Sender ID.  This lack of consensus centers around the IPR
> associated with the PRA algorithm.  Since predicting deployment is a
> subjective matter and not strictly a technical concern, we would like
> to offer the working group a proposal for modifying Sender ID that
> would take the issue of deployment out of the hands of the IETF and
> place it in the hands of the ultimate decision-makers, the systems and
> network administrators of the Internet.  We feel that this is where
> decisions of deployment should really be made.
>
> It is also the opinion of the co-chairs that many in the working group
> are willing to deploy MAIL FROM checking as specified in
> draft-mengwong-spf.  Therefore, we ask for consideration of the
> following proposal:
>
> The ABNF in -protocol 3.4.1 is (mostly from a post by Wayne)
>
>     version     = "spf2." ver-minor "/" ver-scope *( "," ver-scope )
>     ver-minor   = 1*DIGIT
>     ver-scope   = "pra" / "mailfrom" / name
>     name        = alpha *( alpha / digit / "-" / "_" / "." )
>
> And the following stipulations:
>
>   1) "mailfrom" checking will be defined in a new draft
>   2) multiple records are allowed
>   3) a scope (e.g. "pra") can only appear in one record of one type for
> validity purposes
>
> The question before the working group: assuming no technical errors
> with the above, is there anybody who vehemently objects with this
> proposal?
>
> -andy
>
>