----- Original Message -----
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF
In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BED3A(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
This was discussed and at the FTC meeting. The view there was that
should be
no new RR and that any new RR will be ignored. The TXT record is final
and
will not be revised.
I don't remember such discussions at the FTC summit, but then, many
people did not speak into the mics and I could not hear them. Which
panel session did this discussion take place in?
IETFers like Peter Koch were extremely vocal about it, asking
for no TXT records at all and just the new record,
disclaiming installed base as either inexistant or
unimportant.
Well he is wrong.
Hard to refute such powerful and logically constructed arguments...
These two questions did not seem to be a stopper for most
people. The WG should formally review the DNS part of the
draft now if the "SPF community" ask it to do so.
Please save yourselves the effort. The standards will be ratified in
another
venue shortly.
Uh, can you elaborate on this? Oasis?
Of course, the cool thing about standards is that there are so many to
choose from.
True - and you don't have to stick to them anyway - - or so it seems from
the behaviour of the biggest folks. ;-)
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492