Subject: Re: [spfbis] Sean Turner's No Objection on draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19: (with COMMENT)

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:26:53 -0700

Hi Sean,
At 04:43 12-09-2013, Sean Turner wrote:
>Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19: No Objection

[snip]

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Should s11.3 also provide a mitigation via a reference for the spoofed
>DNS?  Right now it just points to the DNS threats RFC.  I guess the
>reader can infer they should use DNSSEC if they're worried but adding a
>pointer to the right RFC would be better.  Something as simple as adding
>"... and see [RFCXYZ] for a countermeasure" or something like that.

I'll suggest:

   and see RFC 4033 for a countermeasure.

and leave it to the SPFBIS WG to comment on the above.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:40:27 -0400

> and leave it to the SPFBIS WG to comment on the above.

That would work for me.

spt

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 12 Sep 2013 15:02:27 -0000

I don't see anything about SPF that makes DNS spoofing more of a
problem than any other DNS application, so I don't see why it needs
another plug for DNSSEC.

On the other hand, it's not a big deal, if it'll make the discuss go away, that's fine.

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:14:16 -0400

> > and leave it to the SPFBIS WG to comment on the above.

I don't think this went to the WG list before, but I don't imagine it being 
controversial.   Added as suggested.

Scott K