On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:04:41 -0400, Meng Weng Wong
<mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:03:56AM +0200, Koen Martens wrote:
|
| Yes, that would be really good. Since I decided to stop worrying about
senderid, i've had a hard time pointing people to the spf standards: there
simply are none besides the unmaintained drafts..
|
| The first thing should be to incorporate the improvements from the marid
drafts into the spf classic draft.. Perhaps i can find some time for this,
but this will have to wait a couple of days/weeks, and we need these specs
now essentially.
|
I have proposed to the IETF AD and co-chairs that we publish
an Experimental RFC to document SPF Classic, and also
publish Experimental RFCs for Sender ID to make Microsoft
happy, and also publish Experiemental RFCs that head in the
direction of Unified SPF.
How do people feel about this course of action?
I guess my main concern would be that Sender ID currently uses the
SPF2 identifier. If SPF Classic uses SPF1 and then a new version and
improved version becomes desirable I see potential problems. Do you
jump to SPF3? Do you share SPF2? Will the proponents of Classic be
willing to see their efforts potentially comingled and co-opted
vis-a-vis Sender ID? The issues that killed MARID were not
technical.... something that all should keep in mind.
Given the way things have progressed (or not) to date I believe that
each of the competing Experimental RFCs should be allowed to proceed
on their own merits without co-mingling. Meng, as the originator of
SPF I think it would be appropriate for you to insist that the SPF
version identifier be reserved for SPF.
Just my 2 cents.
Mike