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.
That's a very good proposal, and I have an idea how much work
it will be, because I thought about doing something in this
direction. ;-)
Current deployment and implementation are by no means 100%
consistent, and ascertaining common understanding is
subjective.
There was only one really controversional point in mailfrom-00,
the SHOULD. Anything else were minor editorial issues, from my
subjective POV.
I believe this will lead to a draft that has had more
technical review and more finely crafted language.
ACK. Give it some time to find all typos and minor bugs in
this future draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt (if that's its name).
It is explicitly not a goal to include any new ideas, or new
variations on the semantics, new mechanisms, etc. And it is
understood from the start that it will not exactly match any
particular implementation or deployment.
Sure. It's also understood that you won't exclude any "old"
ideas like SOFTFAIL or exp= ;-)
I will publish and announce this draft here for a one week
review period.
That's not much. You're not bound by the Oct 18 cut-off date,
it's not a 00 draft.
After that, I will submit the draft to the IETF as per Ted
Hardie's invitation.
What are they expected to do with it ? The same stunt as with
MARID ? Why not submit it to the RfC-editor ? The content is
a FYI, it documents common practice. The spf2.0 stuff would
be more "experimental", because nobody supports it yet (?)
the dual aims of this group: Building the momentum of SPF v1
deployment, and continued research into future versions.
Don't forget that some major players are almost desperately
trying to derail SPF, because they want to sell their FUSSP,
and because they don't get the idea that SPF is no FUSSP. :-(
Bye, Frank