wayne wrote:
Mark has argued strongly that it the new concept of what
"fail" is is not a bug, it is a very deliberate feature.
Yes, he didn't convince me. Roger's arguments were better.
It appears that you believe that only the IETF can create
a standard.
NAK, I proposed to submit the updated SPF draft directly to
the RfC-editor as FYI, but this idea doesn't fly with the
new SPF RR and experimental status. Mark wisely used the
traditional way, and with the new IAB draft about DNS uses
and abuses that was a good idea.
The IETF is making itself irrelevant.
That's another discussion on another list, and its subject
is "shuffling those deck chairs". IMHO you can't (and you
shouldn't) get any RfC touching DNS without IESG approval.
it is not as important to us as spf.pobox.com
But I don't want to depend on spf.pobox.com, that's why I
want a RfC in the first place. And I dont want Meng in a
position where he's forced to choose between competing
drafts incl. Sender-ID.
You appear to be confusing domain names with host names.
No, I just don't know why you changed Mark's correct ABNF,
and found no other quick explanation for your ( "." *ALPHA )
even RFCs include slash as a recommended domain name
ACK, I've no idea which RfCs recommend slash in domain names.
It can't be about the domains in host names relevant for SPF.
Mark's ABNF for the domain-spec allows for many things
other than l-d-h-string.
Sure, his syntax is fine, I understand it. Whatever you did,
you never explained it, it's not obvious, and I didn't try
very hard to guess your motives and what's going on, because
I was only looking for problems in draft-lentczner-spf-00.txt
Bye, Frank