Subject: RE: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:04:22 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:44 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to
> consider the following document:
> - 'Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments'
>   <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> 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
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-06-09. Exceptionally, comments may
> be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

In my quest to ensure I'm never done with a document I'm editing, I reviewed this myself and found a couple of things I plan to change after Last Call completes.  They are either grammar corrections or removal of redundant text, and aren't substantive, so I don't expect they're controversial.  So just to head off other reviewers' comments:

1) The Introduction's first and second paragraph contain substantially identical text.  This will be trimmed.

2) In the Analysis section, I believe conclusions 4 and 6 are redundant.  I propose to remove 6.

3) There are a few places where I should've used "that" instead of "which".

-MSK