Sender Policy Framework (SPF) Authentication Failure Reporting Using the Abuse Reporting Format
draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-10

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.

( Russ Housley ) Abstain