Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19
review-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19-secdir-lc-hallam-baker-2013-09-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-09-10
Requested 2013-08-22
Authors Scott Kitterman
Draft last updated 2013-09-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -19 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -20 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Early review of -14 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Phillip Hallam-Baker
State Completed
Review review-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19-secdir-lc-hallam-baker-2013-09-12
Reviewed rev. 19 (document currently at 21)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2013-09-12

Review
review-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19-secdir-lc-hallam-baker-2013-09-12

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's




ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the

IESG.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just




like any other last call comments.

The document has been produced as part of a proposal to upgrade SPF to standards track recognizing the state of deployment experience.




Minor issues.




1.1.3

.  MAIL FROM Definition




I found this section completely opaque and very confusing. It should not be necessary to hunt through other specs to find a definition. Particularly since the referenced specs do not give an explicit definition for the term as used and the references point to the whole spec rather than a particular section.




The Security Considerations section is adequate for the purpose except that no mention is made anywhere in the specification about DKIM and how a mail receiver should interpret presence of DKIM and SPF policy at the same time. This is a legitimate concern since DKIM is already a standards track proposal and SPF is only now being promoted to Standards Track. Thus the SPF document should address the question of dual use.







8.7

.  Permerror







"

This signals an error condition that




   definitely requires operator intervention to be resolved."




I cannot imagine a circumstance which definitely requires a human to be involved in mail delivery. 




11.2

.  SPF-Authorized Email May Contain Other False Identities






   Do not construe the "MAIL FROM" and "HELO" identity authorizations to
   provide more assurance than they do.

Document has quasi normative language that should be worded as statements of fact rather than as direction.

-- 

Website: 

http://hallambaker.com/