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 |