-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
To any who reply to this thread: please, please trim the list of recipients
to remove any of the following addresses, unless you explicitly want to
address them:
* iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
* iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
* spf-council(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Keith Moore wrote:
when editing documents that purport to describe existing practices and
protocols, there is often a conflict between documenting existing
practice and describing desirable practice (or undesirable practice).
this conflict results in confusion of goals, and one possible result is
that the document describes neither existing practice nor desirable
practice.
in resolving the conflict it is sometimes useful to separate the two
efforts:
- describe existing practice, warts and all
- describe what is believed to be good or bad about the existing
practice
I agree. But please note that there was no "existing practice" of re-using
"v=spf1" records for the checking of the PRA identity or any other non-
envelope identities when Microsoft first submitted the Sender ID drafts to
the IESG after the demise of the MARID WG. See my IESG appeal (included
in the IAB appeal[1]) for details on the history of Sender ID's re-use of
"v=spf1".
Please do not spread urban legends.
Julian.
References:
1. http://www.iab.org/appeals/2006-02-08-mehnle-appeal.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEBzeswL7PKlBZWjsRAqBmAJ9AdDrgJmu57uoKLxESZDVnLK1yVwCgrQM0
Rm1xWFooLP/oOhQ45xXBTMY=
=1M5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf