Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting Format
Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 8 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
( Pete Resnick ) Yes
Jari Arkko (was Discuss) No Objection
( Ron Bonica ) No Objection
( Stewart Bryant ) No Objection
( Gonzalo Camarillo ) No Objection
( Ralph Droms ) No Objection
( Wesley Eddy ) No Objection
( Adrian Farrel ) No Objection
Comment (2012-03-13 for -09)
I have no objection to the publication of this document. Very trivial nits... It would be nice if the Introduction carried exapnsions of the terms ARF and SPF as found in the Abstract. --- In the Intoduction... This document additionally creates a an IANA registry of [SPF] record modifiers to avoid modifier namespace collisions. ...should not use square brackets, I think. --- I think you should really include a reference to the place where your ABNF is defined, and point to this from Section 2. --- You don't need to use RFC 2119 langauge in Section 5.
Stephen Farrell No Objection
Comment (2012-03-11 for -08)
- s3, is "unauthorized routing" the right term for what causes an SPF fail? - s3, "rr=all" as the default - depending on how the discuss on the marf dkim draft is resolved there might be a similar change needed here.
( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection
( Peter Saint-Andre ) No Objection
( Robert Sparks ) (was Discuss) No Objection
( spt ) No Objection
Comment (2012-03-14 for -09)
s6.1: r/SPF SPF/SPF s6.1: missing the closing ) in the last para.