In <007101c4b758$c30de7d0$6c62fea9(_at_)ibmrkydk2ufvdd> "John Glube"
<jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca> writes:
Having said this, there are few matters, I wish to address.
* Mark was requested by this list to bring forward a draft
proposal for consideration by the IESG of what many call
SPF "classic." He did this. Everyone had an opportunity to
comment.
Unfortunately, after this proposal was submitted, Wayne
came forward with a "counter-draft." I must be honest and
say that I am disappointed with this approach.
My draft was never a "counter-draft", it is documentation about what
libspf2 does. I had hoped I had made this point clear when I
said as the very first sentence of my announcement:
: Yesterday night, I decided that instead of giving up on the SPF
: project and watching an SPF spec go through that I would, under no
: circumstances, conform to, that I would simply create a spec that
: documents what libspf2 does. This will be used as documentation for
: my SPF implementation so that people understand what are bugs and what
: are features. ;-)
My draft has not been submitted to the IETF and I have no plans to do
so. It would take a huge amount of convincing to make me change my
mind.
Indeed, Mark did let everyone have a chance to comment on his draft
before he submitted the SPF-classic draft. I have, on several
occasions, told Mark of my concerns. My creation of documentation for
libspf2 came only after Mark's submission to the IETF because until
Mark came out with a final draft, I had no way of knowing if he would
address my concerns.
There was no consensus to proceed in this direction.
I really hope no consensus is needed for me to proceed with
documenting libspf2.
-wayne