On 10/4/2004 8:28 PM, Dave Crocker sent forth electrons to convey:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:51:22 -0700, Matthew Elvey wrote:
Dave, it sounds like you would prefer to see "Make CSV
backwards compatible with legacy SPF records" presented as a
separate I-D, not as proposed edits to CSA; is that right?
there was extensive discussion about this, during marid.
There was plenty of discusion of the "Make CSV backwards compatible with
legacy SPF records" idea; there was no discussion of that question.
I'll proceed as if you had answered 'yes'.
my sense of things is that the semantics of spf do not match
the semantics of the records needed by csv.
I believe I argued successfully that the semantics of a subset of SPF
records do match the semantics of the records needed by CSV. This was
done during said thread, but it was a rather drawn out and hard to
follow thread that I fear few followed in its entirety. It seems you
didn't buy my arguments for my idea.
It fits as part of the WG goals, but progress on other tasks need not be
dependent on it.
=-=-=-=-=-=
PS Hope to hear responses to the other items in my last post.
I have been assuming that this initial reporting mechanism needs
to be as simple and straight-forward as we can make it.
Yes, there's real value in that. Even if it makes some of the scenarios
I painted unworkable, it may be worth it. (The spec doesn't allow values
other than A-E, but it doesn't make them impossible to add later
either.)