Skip to main content

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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-04-18
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2012-04-18
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2012-04-18
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-04-17
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-04-17
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-04-03
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-03-26
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2012-03-22
10 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-03-21
10 Vijay Gurbani Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani.
2012-03-20
10 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2012-03-20
10 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-03-20
10 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-03-20
10 Pete Resnick State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-03-20
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-03-20
10 Pete Resnick Ballot writeup was changed
2012-03-20
10 Pete Resnick Ballot approval text was generated
2012-03-15
10 Amanda Baber
Upon approval, IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dkim-parameters

Registry Name: Sender Policy Framework Modifier
Reference: (this document)
Registration Procedures: Specification Required

    …
Upon approval, IANA will create the following registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dkim-parameters

Registry Name: Sender Policy Framework Modifier
Reference: (this document)
Registration Procedures: Specification Required

                +------------+-----------------+---------+
                | MODIFIER  | REFERENCE      | STATUS  |
                +------------+-----------------+---------+
                | exp        | RFC4408        | current |
                | redirect  | RFC4408        | current |
                | ra        | (this document) | current |
                | rp        | (this document) | current |
                | rr        | (this document) | current |
                +------------+-----------------+---------+
2012-03-15
10 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation
2012-03-15
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot discuss]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbK-g8tKnoc
2012-03-15
10 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
There is a minor ABNF problem in this document:

      spf-rr-tag = "rr=" spf-rr-type 0* ( ":" spf-rr-type )

there should …
[Ballot comment]
There is a minor ABNF problem in this document:

      spf-rr-tag = "rr=" spf-rr-type 0* ( ":" spf-rr-type )

there should not be space after "*"
2012-03-15
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2012-03-15
10 Anabel Martinez New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-10.txt
2012-03-15
09 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-03-15
09 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-03-15
09 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu
2012-03-15
09 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-03-14
09 Sean Turner [Ballot comment]
s6.1: r/SPF SPF/SPF

s6.1: missing the closing ) in the last para.
2012-03-14
09 Sean Turner Ballot comment text updated for Sean Turner
2012-03-14
09 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
s3: This might be because white space in SPF is handled differently than in ADSP, but I thought I'd ask anyway: There's a …
[Ballot comment]
s3: This might be because white space in SPF is handled differently than in ADSP, but I thought I'd ask anyway: There's a *WSP that's present in ra= and rr= marf-dkim-report but not here - should it be added?

spf-report:

spf-report-tag = %x72.61 "=" qp-section

spf-rr-tag = %x72.72 "=" spf-rr-type 0* ( ":" spf-rr-type )

dkim-report

adsp-ra-tag = %x72.61 *WSP "=" qp-section

adsp-rr-tag = %x72.72 *WSP "=" *WSP adsp-rr-type


s6.1: r/SPF SPF/SPF

s6.1: missing the closing ) in the last para.
2012-03-14
09 Sean Turner Ballot comment text updated for Sean Turner
2012-03-14
09 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
s3: This might be because white space in SPF is handled differently than in ADSP, but I thought I'd ask anyway: There's a …
[Ballot comment]
s3: This might be because white space in SPF is handled differently than in ADSP, but I thought I'd ask anyway: There's a *WSP that's present in ra= and rr= marf-dkim-report but not here - should it be added?

spf-report:

spf-report-tag = %x72.61 "=" qp-section

spf-rr-tag = %x72.72 "=" spf-rr-type 0* ( ":" spf-rr-type )

dkim-report

adsp-ra-tag = %x72.61 *WSP "=" qp-section

adsp-rr-tag = %x72.72 *WSP "=" *WSP adsp-rr-type


s6.1: r/SPF SPF/SPF

s6.1: missing close ) in the last para.
2012-03-14
09 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-03-14
09 Pete Resnick State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-03-14
09 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-03-13
09 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

Very trivial nits...

It would be nice if the Introduction carried exapnsions of …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2012-03-13
09 Adrian Farrel Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel
2012-03-13
09 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

Very trivial nits...

It would be nice if the Introduction carried exapnsions of …
[Ballot comment]
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 suqare 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.
2012-03-13
09 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-03-12
09 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-03-12
09 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-03-12
09 Scott Kitterman New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-09.txt
2012-03-12
08 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-03-12
08 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
In the last call discussion, Scott indicated he was making several changes in his local copy. We haven't seen the result of those …
[Ballot discuss]
In the last call discussion, Scott indicated he was making several changes in his local copy. We haven't seen the result of those changes yet. A couple of them look like they might be more then editorial, but it's hard to tell without seeing the full set of changes in context.
2012-03-12
08 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-03-11
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]
- s3, is "unauthorized routing" the right term for what causes an SPF
fail?

- s3, "rr=all" as the default - depending on …
[Ballot comment]
- 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.
2012-03-11
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-03-09
08 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-03-08
08 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre
2012-03-06
08 Pete Resnick Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-03-15
2012-03-06
08 Pete Resnick Ballot has been issued
2012-03-06
08 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-03-06
08 Pete Resnick Created "Approve" ballot
2012-03-06
08 Pete Resnick Ballot writeup was changed
2012-03-06
08 Pete Resnick
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document seeks Proposed Standard status. It specifies a
protocol that requires interoperability to succeed and has not
been specified before. The title page so indicates.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This memo presents extensions to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF),
and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) specifications to allow for
detailed reporting of message authentication failures in an on-demand
fashion. This memo updates RFC4408.

Working Group Summary

There was little controversy of note. The extensions presented here
are useful to sites deploying SPF and seeking visibility into
situations where mail covered by SPF is rejected or otherwise
affected by local policy. Demand for this capability is increasing,
especially from domains that are popular scam targets.

Document Quality

There are only a couple of known existing implementations, one made
by a working group participant as the specification solidified to
prove that it's viable. There are, however, several vendors that
intend to implement this specificaiton and its adjuncts
(draft-ietf-marf-redaction and draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting), along
with other non-MARF specifications that provide this kind of feedback
to respond to customer demand, upon publication.

Personnel

Murray Kucherawy (marf co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.
Pete Resnick is the repsonsible area director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

I have reviewed this document personally, checking its status,
IANA Considerations, Security Considerations and References.
I have no concerns outstanding.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

In addition to working group reviews, external SPF experts have
weighed in on mailing lists outside of the IETF. These reviews
were taken into account during document development.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

Apart from the standard SecDir review that will be triggered by
this request, I don't believe any specific additional reviews
are required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No such concerns exist. The document is non-controversial.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

The author knows of no relevant IPR disclosures, existing
or outstanding, covering this work.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

There are no known applicable IPR disclosures.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG understands and agrees with it.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No appeal threats have been heard.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Both the ID nits tool and a manual review have identified
no outstanding problems.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not touch any areas that require any
formalized reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

The References section has been so labeled (see Section 7).

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are normative references to documents that are as yet
unpublished, but they are either already in the RFC Editor
queue or are approaching the standard post-WG process steps.
In any case, all relevant document states and paths are clear.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

This document makes a normative reference to SPF (RFC4408), which
is Experimental. However, SPF has enjoyed widespread deployment,
and indeed a separate working group is in the process of advancing
it to the Standards Track.

(16) Will publication of this document change to the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

The document updates RFC4408, and indicates such on its title
page, since it takes an IANA action neglected by that earlier
specification. The WG discussed whether or not the SPFbis
working group should really take that IANA action, but ultimately
felt that there was no good reason to delay.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA Considerations section is complete and matches the
rest of the document. It creates a new registry properly
according to RFC5226 procedure. I have no outstanding concerns.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

The registry created by this document does not use
Expert Review as its update method.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Manual and automated reviews of the ABNF rules were performed,
and no concerns were identified.
2012-03-01
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2012-03-01
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Vijay Gurbani
2012-03-01
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari
2012-03-01
08 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari
2012-02-29
08 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2012-02-29
08 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard





The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format

WG (marf) to consider the following document:

- 'SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format'

  as a Proposed Standard



The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits

final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-14. Exceptionally, comments may be

sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the

beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.



Abstract





  This memo presents extensions to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF),

  and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) specifications to allow for

  detailed reporting of message authentication failures in an on-demand

  fashion.



  This memo updates RFC4408 by providing an IANA registry for SPF

  modifiers.



Note that this document has a downward normative reference: This document makes a normative reference to SPF (RFC4408), which is Experimental.



The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting/ballot/





No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.





2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Last call was requested
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick State changed to Last Call Requested from In Last Call
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Last call announcement was changed
2012-02-29
08 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2012-02-29
08 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG

To: IETF-Announce

CC:

Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

Subject: Last Call:  (SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format) to Proposed Standard





The IESG has received a request from the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format

WG (marf) to consider the following document:

- 'SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format'

  as a Proposed Standard



The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits

final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-14. Exceptionally, comments may be

sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the

beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.



Abstract





  This memo presents extensions to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF),

  and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) specifications to allow for

  detailed reporting of message authentication failures in an on-demand

  fashion.



  This memo updates RFC4408 by providing an IANA registry for SPF

  modifiers.









The file can be obtained via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting/



IESG discussion can be tracked via

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting/ballot/





No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.





2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Last call was requested
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Ballot approval text was generated
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Ballot writeup was generated
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Last call announcement was generated
2012-02-29
08 Pete Resnick Last call announcement was generated
2012-02-28
08 Pete Resnick State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching
2012-02-28
08 Murray Kucherawy IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2012-02-28
08 Murray Kucherawy Restore state after new version posted
2012-02-28
08 Scott Kitterman New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-08.txt
2012-02-28
07 Barry Leiba IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2012-02-24
07 Murray Kucherawy PROTO writeup available; will request publication in tandem with draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting
2012-02-24
07 Murray Kucherawy IETF state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2012-02-16
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-07.txt
2012-02-08
07 Murray Kucherawy WGLC ends February 24.
2012-02-08
07 Murray Kucherawy IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2012-02-08
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-06.txt
2012-02-08
07 Murray Kucherawy Changed protocol writeup
2012-02-01
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-05.txt
2012-01-25
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-04.txt
2012-01-24
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-03.txt
2011-10-24
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-02.txt
2011-08-12
07 Pete Resnick Draft added in state AD is watching
2011-08-12
07 Barry Leiba Ready to go to the IESG
2011-07-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-01.txt
2011-06-28
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-00.txt