At 5:15 AM +0200 6/16/05, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Does that IESG member happen to think that SPF suffers from
poor workmanship?
That person changed [yes] to [discuss] after he found out that
his removal of one critical "NOT RECOMMENDED" against the PRA-
abuse doesn't fly with the SPF community. That person did not
propose to remove the offending "SHOULD abuse v=spf1" from PRA.
Bye, Frank
All changes to the state of document are noted in a public ID tracker.
The URL for the tracker details for the SPF document is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12662&rfc_flag=0
A sponsoring AD always has a ballot position of YES when they bring
a document to the IESG. Sponsoring ADs often put in what are called
"placeholder DISCUSS" comments when there are issues raised outside
of the IESG (since those would otherwise not be tracked). Those
should have explanatory text. In this case,the explanatory text is:
"Further discussion on the intended status and relationship to
MARID working group needed."
This was entered to track the fact that the IESG needed to discuss
Wayne's comments
on the disconnect between his intentions as author and the original
draft solicited
after MARID closed (draft-lentczner). This discussion has continued
through Wayne's
request that the spf draft be considered for Proposed Standard,
rather than Experimental.
It also encompasses the problems raised by forwarding both documents; these
were raised both within and outside the IESG, and the IESG had discussed them
at great length.
As was documented on the IETF list response to Wayne, there was no support for
at this time for publishing the spf draft as a Proposed Standard (to
be clear: the
IESG was asked this question at a telechat, and no AD thought it was
appropriate).
The IESG is currently considering moving forward on the basis of an IESG note
suggested by David Kessens. Once the IESG agrees that the document set
is ready, the sponsoring AD position will go back to YES. For those who find
navigating the tracker hard (and it can be non-intuitive), here's the text:
The following documents (draft-schlitt-spf-classic, draft-katz-submitter,
draft-lyon-senderid-core, draft-lyon-senderid-pra) are published
simultaneously
as Experimental RFCs, although there is no general technical
consensus and efforts to reconcile the two approaches
have failed. As such these documents have not received full IETF review
and are published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches as
they were considered in the MARID working group.
The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and
cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach
and concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG
believes that documenting the different approaches does less harm
than not documenting them.
The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the
two approaches during the two years following publication, in
order that a community consensus can be reached in the future.
The document names would be replaced by RFC numbers by the RFC Editor.
All other instructions to the RFC Editor (that is, all the text
trying to reconcile
the two) has been removed.
There has been a lot of discussion of this draft, and this short
summary no doubt
misses some points, but I hope it clarifies the current state at
least somewhat.
regards,
Ted Hardie