william(at)elan.net wrote:
IETF was in very difficult position with all that happened
during last week.
Finding chapter 4 in RfC 2418 isn't very "difficult", and that
wasn't the first problem in this WG. Wayne's summary is still
the best: <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.mxcomp:5234>
I think it would be approriate to continue in the path was
going on at MARID and with marid-protocol draft being renamed
to spf-protocol and with separate draft covering mail-from as
has been recently published by Mark.
Yes, let's consolidate Mark's work (and the work of MARID) in
a v=spf1 compatible syntax, because that's what everybody uses
today.
This goes along the Universal SPF direction.
I'm very reluctant to try more "unifications" at the moment,
the last time was bad enough.
I think we also need to look at some modifications made to
protocol by Mathew Elvey which he released as spf3.
I haven't seen this one yet, do you have a URL ? Google wants
me to use the ASRG wiki, but the ASRG wiki is closed. <sigh>
at the same time SPF2.0 scoping is more structured with
less chance of errors by those publishing records.
If you think that we need other scopes (not "PRA") in the near
future, then the spf2.0 syntax is fine. What do you have in
mind (in addition to "mfrom") ?
I'll not particAipate in the SPF effort further if we do not
agree to work on moving to new dedicated SPF RR DNS records
for the future.
IMHO you can't simply invent new RR types, that's something the
IETF is supposed to do. and that's why there was a MARID WG.
But MARID was closed, so how do you think to get a new DNS RR ?
One possibility is working to extend
draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-00.txt
and to document use of such header for SPF needs.
Remember, we just lost the working group for this purpose. The
draft is still in the "good idea" state, and actually the "PRA"
fans could profit most from it. It's not essential for classic
SPF (spf2.0/mfrom), but more flexible than the old Received-SPF.
Bye, Frank