Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt> (A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers) to Proposed Standard

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0700

At 07:43 15-08-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Reputation Services WG (repute)
>to consider the following document:
>- 'A Reputation Response Set for Email Identifiers'
>   <draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-08.txt> as 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
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-08-29. Exceptionally, comments may be

draft-ietf-repute-model is a down-ref.  I suggest referencing the 
updated SPF specification as that specification is said to fix some 
issues in RFC 4408.

Why is DKIM and SPF normatively referenced while SMTP is an 
informative reference?

Section 5 states that the draft "is primarily an IANA action and 
doesn't describe any protocols or protocol elements".  Why is the 
intended status "Proposed Standard"?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:58:04 -0700

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:24 AM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> draft-ietf-repute-model is a down-ref.  I suggest referencing the updated
> SPF specification as that specification is said to fix some issues in RFC
> 4408.
>

The downref was discussed on another thread.

I left the reference to RFC4408 as is because I was unclear on the timing
of the processing of this document versus RFC4408bis.  I'm fine with making
that change if Pete thinks it's the right choice at this point.

Why is DKIM and SPF normatively referenced while SMTP is an informative
> reference?

Yes, they should probably all be the same.  Will fix.

Section 5 states that the draft "is primarily an IANA action and doesn't
> describe any protocols or protocol elements".  Why is the intended status
> "Proposed Standard"?
>

It may not need that status given some of the material that was originally
here has been moved to the other WG documents.  I'll defer to the chairs or
the AD on that one.

-MSK