wayne wrote:
I expect that if you claim that there was near consensus on
protocol-03 and mailfrom-00, that you wouldn't turn around
and in your next message claim that it it is ok to not have
any serious technical review.
From my POV "all" resp. "we" wanted 2821 tests as in v=spf1.
After some months with 2822-PRA and a spectacular "last call"
failure the co-chairs finally allowed to discuss 2821 tests
and asked for a draft about it. Mark delivered within 3 days,
and because that's what "all" resp. "we" wanted right from the
start in MARID I was certain that protocol-03 + mailfrom-00
will be "the real thing".
The scope idea was not mine. Meng added it about a year ago
We're talking about different things, I meant the precise
syntax proposed for "spf2.0/pra,mailfrom" in MARID, see also
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03716.html>
| 3a) Put scopes in the <ver-ext> field
| Proposed by Wayne in
| http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03441.html
| This scheme replaces the "/pra" and <ver-ext> field in the
| version string with a list of scopes. For example:
| "spf2.0/pra,mailfrom" or "spf2.0/mailfrom".
Mark's idea, and a darn good one too.
Let's just say that you both share the credits, okay ? ;-)
When you change the fundemental meaning of "fail" and
change the circumstances inwhich it is created, you have a
major change.
It's what Roger (IIRC) said, SPF stands for "sender policy",
not "receiver". IMHO an obvious bug which has to be fixed.
Only one FAIL is better, clearer, and shorter => KISS.
Oh good. So we both agree on the last spec for SPF-classic?
Sure, that was draft-mengwong-spf-00, it expired about 18 days
ago. The actual v=spf1 draft is draft-lentczner-spf-00. That
is the only existing draft without major problems in the ABNF,
(minus one "macro-with-sp" issue in explanations found by you).
In other words please don't touch it. Whatever ( "." *ALPHA )
in your domain-spec is supposed to do, it's no "l-d-h-string"
normally found in a domain syntax (ldh = letter digit hyphen).
And what Mark did with the slash was the result of careful
considerations with an expert about parsing ambiguities, you
can't simply remove it.
Bye, Frank