On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 03:35:03PM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote:
I don't post much here, so many of you may not know me: I'm your
humble standards editor and co-author with Meng.
I do know who you are and also like to once more express my respect for
what you have done for spf so far!
We (Meng and I), as authors of drafts that were part of the MARID
working group, have been asked to "put forward their documents as
non-working group submissions for Experimental RFC status".
Experimental RFC status is granted to a draft that "is part of some
research or development effort" and "is published for the general
information of the Internet technical community and as an archival
record of the work" (to quote RFC 2026).
The question before me is, what do I include in such a submitted draft?
It seems there is a desire to make SPF-Classic (what is being deployed
now) more of a standard, and I share this desire. Right now, there is no
real definitive document we can point to and say 'see that's spf, that's
what you should be publishing'. Let us put that forward first, that is
the http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200406.txt document or the successor
draft-mengwengwon-01 (did i get that correct?), with the corrections
that came forward from the MARID review applied.
Once that is 'cast in stone' we can move on to the spf next generation.
I don't think we should be changing spf classic anymore, since it is
deployed as it is now.
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/