In <CDF813AC-1267-11D9-B638-000393A56BB6(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> Mark Lentczner
<markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> writes:
The question before me is, what do I include in such a submitted draft?
I agree with William Elan. The first thing to submit is SPF-classic.
William mentioned http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200406.txt, but I
think that http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mengwong-spf-01.txt
would be a better start. It was what was released right before the
MARID iterim meeting and before the SenderID gunk was added.
If we were a group with a clear, though evolving, design, and running,
interoperable code, then this would be the perfect time to document
that which has been stable and working, bundle it into a draft, and
submit it.
But we are not that. Discussion on this list still makes it clear
that even within the SPF faithful, there are vast disagreements on
what should be checked, what order, what the meaning is, and the even
the details of the technical form.
I disagree with that assessment. I think there is a reasonable
agreement on SPF-classic as defined in the drafts above. What is not
agreed on is where to go for here.
Indeed, even my current thoughts
on SPF (which I'll express to this list at a later time) are now
tending to some more radical changes (mostly in the form of excising
as much as possible!)
We have talked briefly about this subject before. I think I am going
to have to agree to disagree with many of your ideas about what to
hack out.
-wayne