Guy wrote:
Maybe Wayne's draft should have been submitted to the IETF
and not draft-lentczner-spf-00.
Wayne's memo is based on draft-lentczner, it's not completely
different / incompatible. It's more restrictive in various
aspects, and it mentions the old HELO option (without reasons
why almost all domain owners should want it).
differing opinions often trigger new ideas
Sure, but then the editors should cooperate.
when the differences can't be resolved, the tech lead will
have to make the final decision. Hopefully the tech lead
does not have an ego, else you have the wrong tech lead.
All leaders have an ego, but the most obvious problem now is
that Mark isn't visible anymore, Meng is busy with Sender-ID,
and the one point where James and Waye agree is apparently to
move the technical discussions to DEVEL.
Which is IMHO a very bad idea, because the drafts are not only
relevant for SPF implementors, but also for domain owners
publishing a sender policy and other interested folks here on
this list (DISCUSS).
Of course DEVEL aspects are very important, but they are not
all.
[James wrote:]
publishing of an RFC is precisely what we need.
Exactly.
What you are witnessing is "feature creep" in action.
Plus editorial / "political" (= IESG) considerations.
Its going to take a unified team of us to agree on a couple
of outstanding issues (as I see it and others do) with the
SPF1 spec.
ACK.
They are rather minute and could probably be quickly hashed
out in a couple of days.
If Mark comes back from whereever he is. Please. ASAP.
I would like to state tho that technical discussion should
really move to the spf-devel list where there is far less
disturbance and way more focus.
Here I disagree. As an example the technical aspects of the
optional HELO checking are clear and covered by a single
statement in Wayne's memo. The reasoning behind it is less
obvious (=> reject all mails after a SPF HELO FAIL) and could
be explicitly mentioned.
Bye. Frank