Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
As a matter of fact the IAB chair recused herself from that
discussion.
That's true, and in the case of the IAB vs. ISO 3166 I'd be
on the side of the IAB. But replacing the obsolete RfC 954
before an alternative was available was a bit rush for RFCI.
I just read a draft about DEFLATEd XML over UDP, it's like
Caller-ID vs. SPF.
There is overwhelming support for SPF, it is a de facto
standard and is in the process of deployment in its current
form.
Without RfC I have some doubts, the confusion with MARID and
Sender-ID didn't help. And some missing details in the last
SPF draft like "processing limits" or "zone cut" are critical.
It is neither possible nor desirable to waste time on binary
encodings at this point.
It's a possible idea for the new SPF RR resp, spf2.0, I don't
expect it to be relevant very soon. Abusing TXT won't work
forever, the nonsense TXT "spf2.0/pra" adds already 10 bytes,
and new FUSSPs doing something with TXT could push wildcards
over the 512 bytes barrier. And that's the moment where SPF
really needs Wayne's "zone cut" in a RfC.
I know you don't find dealling with large companies easy
I've no general problem with large companies, sometimes I even
like them (e.g. IBM or amazon). As long as they play fair. I
even like the update procedure for W2K (but not the reasons why
they have security updates every month). And some of "your"
competitors for TLD .net would be worse than the status quo.
Why are you obsessing about one standards group with
negligible deployment influence whose price of recognition
appears likely to be destroying the whole project?
The SPF RR destroys nothing, it's like XHTML vs. HTML 4, did
XHTML "destroy" HTML 4 ? Only geeks know the differences.
Whatever flaws there might be in SPF are probably beyond
redemption at this point.
They're not. Just adding most of Wayne's ideas should fix it.
Bye, Frank