Mark,
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 04:47:15PM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote:
I will produce a draft that represents what is the common understanding
of SPF v1. The goal is for such a draft to document current deployment
and implementation and serve as a basis for interoperability testing and
exploration for future versions.
Sounds good to me.
This task is by nature not purely mechanical: Current deployment and
implementation are by no means 100% consistent, and ascertaining common
understanding is subjective. I take it as both the privilege and the
burden as editor to make these calls.
A short note on current practice and the standard. Not too long ago we
had a short discussion about mixing up mechanisms, eg. some would
publish a:1.2.3.0/24 for example, while this should be ip4:1.2.3.0/24.
I remember the majority of this list rejecting changing the standard to
accomodate for these kinds of common mistakes, and therefore hope you
will also ignore these common mistakes in writing up the rfc.
However, text for this new draft will derive from the MARID drafts
draft-ietf-marid-protocol and draft-ietf-marid-mailfrom rather than the
older SPF drafts. I believe this will lead to a draft that has had more
technical review and more finely crafted language.
This is also an excellent idea, as there are a couple of ambiguities
that have been cleared up by the marid review that are still present in
the spf drafts.
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/