On Wed May 25 2005 09:48, wayne wrote:
Ok, would this be clearer to you?
If domain owners choose to publish SPF records, it is RECOMMENDED
that they end in "-all", or redirect to other records that do, so
that a definitive determination of authorization can be made.
It repeats an error ("domain owners") already discussed, and still doesn't
address the basic issue that such text undermines what little partial
acknowledgment of issues exists in the draft. Also, the specific
recommendation of -all is at the heart of the fundamental problem that
the mechanism is hostile to mobile users.
The simple fact of the matter is that the draft does not adequately address
the failings of the scheme proposed, and it simply won't pass Last Call or
IESG reviews without forthrightly acknowledging those failings.
The spf-classsic I-D has yet to pass the IESG, but it is only two
votes away with only one "discuss" remaining. That discussion point
has been resolve in the latest revision.
That's for "Experimental", and I suspect that the IESG has yet to consider
issues raised in recent discussion. For either Informational or
Standards Track, the review starts over, and specifically for Standards
Track there needs to be a minimum 4 weeks public IETF Last Call (assuming
the cognizant AD is willing to shepherd the draft for Standards Track
status).