(1) The type of RFC being requested is Informational. The draft documents
the resolution of the SPF and Sender ID Experiments. The type is
indicated in the title page header.
(2) The approval announcement contains the following sections:
In 2006 the IETF published a suite of protocol documents comprising
SPF and Sender ID, two proposed email authentication protocols with
Experimental status. After six years, sufficient experience and
evidence have been collected that the experiments thus created can
be considered concluded. This document presents those findings.
Working Group Summary
The SPFBIS working group had a difficult task ahead as it was not clear
how to conclude the SPF and Sender ID Experiments and how to address
the IESG Notes in RFC 4405, RFC4406, RFC4407, and RFC4408. There were
discussions about how to proceed. Only one proposal was submitted and
it was adopted by the working group.
The discussions about the RRTYPE 99 DNS Resource Record were controversial.
The issue was resolved. There was consensus that Sender ID re-use of
SPF DNS Resource Records does not have to be called out in the document.
This document represents a best effort by the SPFBIS working group to
conclude the experiments which were documented in the above-mentioned
The document does not specify a protocol. The document was reviewed by the
SPFBIS working group. Barry Leiba, as an individual, and Dave Crocker
performed a thorough review of the document.
S. Moonesamy is the Document Shepherd for this document. Pete Resnick
is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) I have personally reviewed draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09. Even though
the milestone for the draft is August 2012, given that it has achieved
the goals set forth in the SPFBIS working group charter, I believe that
the draft is reading for forwarding to the IESG for publication.
(4) This document has been reviewed by at least five SPFBIS WG participants.
The document has also been reviewed by Andrew Sullivan. I do not have
any concerns about the depth and breath of the reviews performed.
(5) The document will also be reviewed by Alexey Melkinov on behalf of
the Applications Area Directorate.
(6) I do not have any specific concerns or issues with the document.
(7) The 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.
(8) There are no IPR disclosures referencing this document.
(9) The WG as a whole understand and agree with the document. It has
(10) Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent during the WGLC.
(11) Id-nits lists an error in Appendix A due to a SHOULD and the
absence of a reference to RFC 2119. The reference is not
(12) The document does not require any formal review.
(13) All references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative.
(14) The document normatively references RFCs.
(15) As the intended document status is Informational, the normative
references to Experimental RFCs are not downward references.
(16) The publication of this document does not change the status of any
(17) No IANA action is requested. This is clearly indicated in the
IANA Considerations Section.
(18) The document does not make use of any IANA registries.
(19) The document does not contain any formal language.