"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
It does not seem particularly worthwhile to have any further discussion
of the details of the scheme beyond the final state we got to in the
IETF group. We are not going to get universal agreement on a single
method of interpreting the data but the last thing we ned is a standards
war.
Did you read the BATV proposal by Dave Crocker?
<http://brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-crocker-marid-batv-00-06dc.html
While I agree with you that a consensus is not reasonably reachable. BATV
looks to me like a Sender-ID killer. It does the same thing as the mailfrom
scope (prevent bounces from forged emails) and is much simpler to implement.
That leaves only the PRA scope as useful, and it's not much tested and
requires a license. I won't pretend that I know the details of
SPF/Sender-ID/BATV in enough details to make a final jugdment on this, but I
have not seen any claims that BATV was better than the mailfrom scope of
Sender-ID.
I think it is time to ditch the IETF and go to a different org. There
are plenty to choose from.
[...]
Before MARID my preference was to work on the specs in OASIS which is
a much more professional outfit than the IETF and actually has a track
record of succeeding with short timescale proposals. We don't need a
big imprimatur here, just some group that has an ISO accreditation of
some form.
Are you talking about this group? http://www.oasis-open.org/
If so, then I understand that by "profesional" you mean "corporate." They
charge $250/year for non voting membership and $1000/year for non-profit
voting membership. I'll refrain from making comments about a particular
organisation that help sink the MARID ship.
Regards,
GFK's
--
Guillaume Filion, ing. jr
Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Québec, Canada - http://logidac.com/
PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/