On 6/4/2004 12:09 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
"Jim Lyon" <jimlyon(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
In summary, XML gives us more, and better-defined, extensibility points
than anything we're likely to dream up ourselves as extensions to SPF.
Has there been a demonstrated need for that extensibility?
Is it even within the groups charter? My reading says no:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/marid-charter.html
| Because individual messages may be associated with multiple domains
| (among them the domains present in the RFC2822 From, RFC2822 Sender,
| the SMTP Mail-From, and the SMTP EHLO), the first task of the working
| group will be to establish which of these identities should be
| associated with MTA authorization. Once this decision has been
| reached, it will limit the scope of further activity in this working
| group, and the chairs will rule out of order discussion related to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| schemes which use other identities as the basis of authorization.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Extensions beyond the agreed-upon mechanism are out-of-scope.
Again, the WG needs to decide if it will do a small and compact RR or if
wants a pointer to infinitely-extensible (and external) policy defs. I'm
completely agnostic as to the choice.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/