-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Mark
Lentczner
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 6:35 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Moving forward
Hi all -
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.
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?
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. 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!)
At the core I see there are set of ideas, that one might label "SPF
Classic" that seem to endure. But in active discussion and development
I see many different splinters of this: Meng's call for a new form of
Unified SPF, various combinations with and with out CSV, my own
thoughts toward a stripped down SPF, and even Microsoft's call for
submitting the dual-identity version of Sender ID. Alas, these changes
don't seem to me to be tweaks of the last ten percent -- they are often
wholesale changes in approach.
If I'm to write up what should be put forth for experimental status,
then we need to have some cohesion on what it is that we agree on for a
core. The only thing I see is the SPF Classic ("v=spf1") that is
deployed in thousands of domains and implemented. Do we have enough
agreement to promote that? If we should be promoting something else,
can we show enough rallying around some other approach to claim that it
is meaningful to document it now so experimentation with
interoperability can begin?
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com
Please add my vote to the list of those in favor of an RFC for SPF Classic
before we do anything else.
I'd suggest:
1. Someone (how about you) pick which draft we should use as a baseline
2. We all take a week to send in comments on the draft (editorial/tech
correction only since the goal is to document what is in use, not make it
"Better".)
3. Based on comments a draft is produced.
4. Once the draft is out, we have our own "Last call" on this list.
5. If necessary, the draft is revised and then submitted.
I think this ought to happen quickly. SPF classic is well understood and
reasonably well documented. It ought to be the first submission to the IETF
and get whatever leverage is to be had from first mover advantage.
Scott Kitterman