In <000001c4a7f6$0cb04ad0$6c62fea9(_at_)ibmrkydk2ufvdd> "John Glube"
<jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca> writes:
From: wayne Sent: October 1, 2004 2:37 PM
|With the MARID being disbanded, this lets Meng, the IETF
|(Ted and the maybe former co-chairs?) and MS (Harry, Jim,
|et al) avoid having to deal with working group directions
|and working group last calls. Now, they are free to do
|what they want and the only road block between SenderID
|with the PRA and RFC status is the IESG last call.
There is one crucial point you are forgetting. Mark is the
RFC Editor for the SPF drafts (being marid-protocol and
marid-mailfrom). The request to submit Drafts was put to
Mark.
No, both Mark and Meng are co-authors, they both have control over the
documents. Meng has let Mark do most of the editing recently, but
that is a relatively recent change.
To Mark's great credit he has done the right thing and
asked the SPF community for direction.
And the result of that has been? Mark's single post in the last month
and a half didn't say he was asking for our input. He did ask a few
rhetorical questions. Mark wants to greatly cut down the SPF spec.
Meng wants to create Unified-SPF. MS wants just the PRA. Go back and
read Mark's post.
What is my request? Even though I believe the SPF community
needs to change direction, (as set out in other posts which
I have made), at this juncture it is appropriate that Mark
submit the appropriate document (s) to support publishing
v=spf1 records, allowing receiving MTAs to check the HELO
and MAILFROM scopes (commonly called SPF classic) for
approval by the IESG as an RFC Experimental Standard.
Both Mark and Meng have *explicitly* said that they don't want to
standardize SPFv1. Mark, in particular, really doesn't want to do
HELO checking. It makes no difference what you think is appropriate.
Mark and Meng will do what Mark and Meng want to do.
I appreciate this stance may upset MS, but it was not the
SPF community which changed the "water under the beam."
But Meng has already spoken for the SPF community by saying that we
would go forward with the PRA.
Please also note the following statement made by Mark
during last call:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03994.html
Oh, yeah, I saw that one. Mark has never coded an SPF implementation,
so his talk about not doing any work on one because of the IPR
problems is kind of moot.
I am very glad that Mark took a stand against the MS license, but none
of the stuff he has co-authored dealt with the PRA anyway.
In the circumstances, the SPF community has been left with
no choice but to withdraw its support for the PRA scope.
Again, Meng has already spoken for the SPF community and continues to
support the PRA.
-wayne