Resolution of The SPF/Sender-ID Experiment
draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-01
SPFBIS Working Group M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft Cloudmark
Intended status: Informational April 10, 2012
Expires: October 12, 2012
Resolution of The SPF/Sender-ID Experiment
draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-01
Abstract
In 2006 the IETF published a suite of protocol documents comprising
SPF and Sender-ID, two proposed email authentication protocols.
Because of interoperability concerns created by simultaneous use of
the two protocols by a receiver, and some concerns with Sender-ID and
compatibility with existing standards, the IESG required them to have
Experimental status and invited the community to observe their
deployments for a period of time, hoping convergence would be
possible later.
After six years, sufficient experience and evidence have been
collected that the experiment thus created can be considered
concluded, and a single protocol can be advanced. This memo presents
those findings.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Kucherawy Expires October 12, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SPF/Sender-ID Experiment April 2012
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Need For Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Evidence of Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Evidence of Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. From the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Recommendations to the IESG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Experiences Developing SPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Kucherawy Expires October 12, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SPF/Sender-ID Experiment April 2012
1. Introduction
In April 2006, the IETF published the [SPF] and Sender-ID email
authentication protocols, the latter consisting of three documents
([SUBMITTER], [SENDER-ID], and [PRA]). Both of these enable one to
publish via the Domain Name System a policy declaring which mail
servers were authorized to send email on behalf of a specific domain
name. The two protocols made use of this policy statement and some
specific (but different) logic to evaluate whether or not the email
client sending or relaying a message was authorized to do so.
Because Sender-ID supported use of the same policy statement as SPF,
the IESG at the time was concerned that an implementation of
Sender-ID might erroneously apply that statement to a message and,
depending on selected recipient actions, could improperly interfere
with message delivery. As a result, the IESG required the
publication of all of these documents as Experimental, and requested
that the community observe deployment and operation of the protocols
over a period of two years from publication in order to determine a
reasonable path forward. (For further details about the IESG's
Show full document text