GC> While I agree that "unified SPF" really needs a draft in order to talk
GC> details, I don't see anything wrong with talking about it as an
GC> concept" for a while.
When the discussion is in the context of whether to "merge CSV into
SPF" then I'm afraid there is quite a lot wrong with comparing a
concrete specification to an abstract idea.
It also does not help when the abstract idea is used in the form of
"Unified SPF can do that", as if everything were entirely settled and
no concerns could possibly exist.
GC> to say "Stop talking about concepts for which there is no draft".
You are right. So it is a good thing, that's not what has been said.
What has been said is "stop comparing a hypothetical, undocument
concept of an evolved SPF with the concrete, relatively stable
specification of CSV."
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>