Slowly but surely we are on the road to IETF ratification.
The IETF is "checking our work" and making sure SPF didn't miss
anything. Keep in mind the IETF has a strongly academic bent.
Over here in the trenches, SPF already has a thriving developer
community and something like 13,000 registered domains.
So the IETF is producing rough consensus, and we're producing running
code. Let's hope they meet in the middle with a thunderclap and promote
the SPF draft into a full-blown RFC!
The following message comes from the MXCOMP mailing list of the IETF
MARID working group. To become a Member Of The IETF all you have to do
is join the list. If you're not already on there you're welcome to
join the fun! http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:06:55PM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
|
| As stated previously, the chairs see very strong support for 2821
| identities and somewhat strong support for 2822 identities. Such
| strong cases have been made for each that many favoring 2821 identities
| see 2822 identities as being important for secondary consideration and
| vice versa. However, the participants of this group have shown a rough
| consensus favoring the use of 2821 identities first and 2822 identities
| second.
|
| Though there have been discussions around handling both sets of
| identities, given the lack of compromise from many of the proposal
| authors and the short schedule specified by our milestones, it is best
| that this working group first concentrate on creating a DNS RR
| addressing the 2821 identities and then proceed to consideration of
| 2822 identities.
|
| In addition to facilitating concensus in the group and to ensuring a
| fair and open process, the chairs are also responsible for the
| technical competence and coherence of any output by the group. It is
| the considered judgment of the chairs that the working group must
| develop a single policy framework (a single language for describing
| sender policy language and a single DNS RR to contain policies written
| in that language) to be used by both the 2821- and 2822-based
| mechanisms. Accordingly, as the working group completes its work on the
| 2821-based mechanism, the policy framework developed must be adequate
| to reasonably support the needs of a 2822-based mechanism.
|
| There is also very strong consensus for the need of accreditation
| services and changes in the methods of forwarding email. Therefore it
| is perfectly reasonable for MARID to account for such mechanisms;
| however, their definition is beyond the scope of the MARID charter.
|
| -andy & mtr