I suggest we make one change and then announce v1.0. Until that happens
nobody will believe that it is frozen, slushy or plasma.
The on change is the description of the version string which is wrong. At
present it says it relates to the spf version. It should say the version of
the spf policy syntax.
The reason for this is that we are likely to define new features for spf at
some time that mean it makes sense to talk about a 2.0 or 3.0 version with a
whole lotta extra features. We want to have the option of doing that without
loosing backwards compatibility.
The spec version number is a marketting term. That should not be fixed to
mechanism.
It seems to me that freezing 1.0 would be positive in many ways. Not least
the fact that this is what we always do in standards process, first thing is
you declare a version 1.0 or 1.1 'best practices' document. Then having
documented the base level you build new.
There is now a big enough user base for it to be important to separate
development from deployment. Deployment needs to have a stable foundation.
If it isn't all up for grabs then development is not that much fun. The user
base is not yet significant enough to make changes unthinkable.
We can still deprecate features that turn out to be bad ideas, or add new
ones.
Phill
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
Wiki:
http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/HomePage
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡