On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, wayne wrote:
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.
Gee, I guess I know who wrote Acknowledgements in spf-draft and how such
name got in there... :)
For the record, my last name is "Leibzon" and I usually include that in
most emails in the signature. "Elan" is my company name (full "Elan
Communications Inc", common form "Elan Networks" - hence domain Elan.Net)
and its actually not meant to be french so when I pronounce I put emphasis
on 2nd syllable with long "a" sound, i.e. something like ela'an.
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.
Either one, but do remember there were number of misspells and corrections
done to marid-protocol which would not change the core of the draft but
would make it better document for publication. This all has to be taken
into account.
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.
I also agree with above. That is why I think we should wait with sending
marid-protocol and marid-mailfrom (and submitter and other unified spf
documents) for RFC publication and first publish full unified spf
collection as internet drafts (after we have discussed what unifed spf
really is) and have draft text discussed on both this and other lists as
well as work on code to implement what is in drafts and compare how it
works. Only after some months in draft stage would it make sense to
request EXPERIMENTAL RFC publication.
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.
Perhaps you guys should not keep to yourself and have the list discuss
what goes into SPF2.0 ...
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net