Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?
2004-10-17 04:22:38
Nick,
At 02:04 AM 10/17/2004, you wrote:
..snip..
Oh for goodness' sake. There seem to be far too many people around here
recently seeing reds under every bed. I suggest those of you who have any
doubt about Meng's intentions in this go back and read the very early
messages from this list. And then consider how much *work* Meng has put in
to SPF, and how it has developed.
And if you're still not convinced, ask Meng whether he has IRC logs from
the moment he first decided to "so something about it" onward.
To save you the bother, the executive summary: he's not in this for MS' sake.
Then screw your heads on right and try being practical and pragmatic;
point your paranoia in a rather more useful direction. We all know
what MS' motivation is, and we all know what they like to do to
standards. Do you really think that they're likely to drop their
precious PRA when they can just go ahead and use it with SPF records
anyway? Don't shoot Meng, he's just the messenger. Rather, proceed to
thank your lucky stars that it's not *you* stuck in the middle of this
working your nuts off and getting bashed by your own team.
Thank you for your logical observations above. Meng is the progenitor of
SPF and has apparently worked very hard for well over a year to see his
vision gradually turn into a reality. Those efforts should be recognized
and applauded. I would like to believe that each contributing member in
this group attempts to do their part to forward the acceptance and
promotion of SPF. While there are wildly differing opinions on how this is
best done, were it not for Meng, none of us would be here discussing this now.
No matter one's opinions on the motives of the Microsoft Corporation, it is
like any other very large corporation, in that it should be seen as a very
solid partner company to have in your camp. Any day when a company like
Microsoft knocks on your door asking to work with you is what most would
call a very good day. Large partners have reach and resources that can
penetrate the noise of a lot of disparate voices and open many doors. Meng
would have been wrong not to speak with them then and wrong not to continue
dialogs with them (or any other big and interested Internet participants)
now and in the future for the benefit of SPF.
Where some of us part company, is in the issue of standards bearing the
burden of legal ownership by one group or company. But that is a whole
other debate and really has nothing to do with the company being Microsoft
Corporation or any other specific company.
I think that an Internet standard needs to start its life as public domain
property with no party owning the standard. Anything less and a standard
cannot honestly be called a standard, but rather it becomes a product
property of a company and its licensees. While that is a fine occurrence,
it is not a standard and I think the vast majority of contributors to this
list are attempting to contribute in a positive way so that a true standard
is born.
I suppose one could ask if Microsoft has contributed to past RFCs without
the legal baggage apparently associated with the current participation. If
the answer is yes, then one might ask what changed? If there were a way
for them to back off any legal claim to the SPF standard, it would go a
long way to improving trust as all participants move forward in trying to
accomplish a common goal. At least one of the other large companies
involved in SPF backed away from spf2.0 and have stayed with the evolving
spf1. It would be a shame to lose any large current or future SPF adopters
and promoters over legal entanglements, so there must be a way to
compromise to achieve what is best for all.
Now, a practical question: why not keep spf1 PRA- and scope-free, turn spf2
into spf1 with scopes as Meng has been suggesting, and make spf3 be the
vague thing that is still to be discussed and worked on?
IMHO, this is a brilliant thought and something that should be examined
further. The only caveat being that in turning loose an SPF2
specification, the creators of that specification conform to SPF1 rules (as
amended) for compatibility and agree to maintain their specification with
compatibility or coexistence to future SPFx specification versions as they
are adopted, with depreciated elements that arise over time excepted.
Who knows, if there is a better PRA implementation concept offered by this
SPF group than the proposed, perhaps Microsoft will adopt it and drop their
own. We have already witnessed their willingness to make such
accommodations seen with the demise of the XML in TXT strategy they had
originally proposed in favor of following what Meng started with SPF.
It is far more logical and productive to maintain cooperative relationships
than adversarial ones. The smaller sized parties end up with big friends
to support and promote the standard. The big companies end up with
positive PR from contributions made in forwarding something that tangibly
helps to improve an entire global network, which when positioned properly
by competent marketers can make their companies look very good
indeed. Neither is a bad outcome.
At least that gives MS the opportunity to do PRA without breaking anything.
This is one major reason for accepting your compromise plan with
caveats. I wonder if this the first time an experimental offshoot has
taken place during the creation of an experimental proposed standard. I
also wonder if that has worked in the past to create a stronger final
standard. If this is not the first time such a situation has occurred and
it has worked in the past, then there is precedence for doing this. So,
what is the harm in trying this here given everyone understands and plays
by the same rules?
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp(_at_)nz(_dot_)lemon-computing(_dot_)com
You have been selected for a secret mission.
Best,
Alan Maitland
The Commerce Company - Making Commerce Simple(sm)
http://WWW.Commerco.Com/
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Moving Forward ..., (continued)
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, jpinkerton
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Nick Phillips
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, jpinkerton
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?,
Commerco WebMaster <=
- RE: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Bruce Barnes
- RE: will PRA checking take off anyway?, guy
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, william(at)elan.net
- Re: will PRA checking take off anyway?, Frank Ellermann
- Re: Moving Forward ..., wayne
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Margaret Olson
- Re: Moving Forward ..., wayne
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Chris Haynes
- Re: Moving Forward ..., Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re: Moving Forward ..., william(at)elan.net
|
|
|