NB Speaking only for myself -- not any other CSV authors:
Andrew Newton <andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> wrote:
Based on constructive working group discourse, the co-chairs of MARID
observe the following:
1) There is consensus within the MARID working group for the use of SPF
syntax over other encoding schemes. While this consensus is not
unanimous or overwhelming, it is rough consensus. The working group's
rough consensus on this issue derives from several considerations;
among them is the belief that MARID's output should focus on the
short-term needs of MTA authentication (consistent with the charter of
the group), and that open-ended extensibility for email policy within a
MARID record may lead to problems of interoperability. The co-chairs
also note that there were no practical or obvious examples of
extensions to a MARID record that could not be represented by the SPF
syntax.
If by this, the chairs mean to stop attempting to include an XML
syntax, I personally agree that it appears to be the only way to
complete our work for RFC2822 headers on schedule.
If the chairs mean something else, I must beg that they be more
explicit what they mean by "SPF syntax".
2) The consensus for the use of SPF syntax does not preclude continuing
work on the PRD and SUBMITTER concepts. The co-chairs note that there
has been very constructive discourse on these concepts and that the
working group should continue to refine these ideas for use with
MARID's output.
I quite agree.
3) Despite the working group's consensus for the use of SPF syntax, the
co-chairs find that there is no consensus for declaring the SPF
specification finished...
I quite agree.
4) Finally, the co-chairs observe that the MARID working group has a
very strong consensus, though not unanimous, on the reuse of TXT
records...
I agree that TXT records are essential to SPF. (CSV, of course,
could function without them.)
To meet the tight deadline this working group as set for itself to have
a candidate for a proposed standard by the end of August, 2004, we
propose the following schedule of activities:
- Due 2004-07-02: Decide if CSV is complementary, parts to be
incorporated, or dropped.
A most reasonable date: I think we should look for initial agreement
during the Monday jabber; plus a few days on the list to see if there's
any wild objection.
But personally, I think the middle ground is unwise: it should be
edited into shape separately, or dropped. Any parts which the working
group would prefer not to include can be removed (or perhaps footnoted
to refer to different documents). I feel confident that -- with the
single exception of whether to query for SRV or query for the SPF
TXT record -- consensus could be reached on schedule. I have no such
confidence for merging the two together.
- Due 2004-07-08: Decide how MARID output will work with already
deployed SPF records (v=spf2?).
Seems reasonable: I have no strong opinion.
- Due 2004-07-31: Refine SPF syntax and extensibility semantics.
- Due 2004-07-31: Fold in PRD and SUBMITTER.
These seem dubious. Recall that that's during the ID blackout period
for IETF 60. I think it unwise to do these without externally visible
documents. Inevitably (IMHO) this will lead to last-minute changes and
confusion during our IETF60 meeting.
(BTW, how stable does the schedule seem: are we pretty well set for
Wednesday, August 4, at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.?)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>