----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
There is overwhelming support for SPF, it is a de facto standard and is in
the process of deployment in its current form.
It is neither possible nor desirable to waste time on binary encodings at
this point. They are not viable for the same reason that XML was not
viable,
the water has passed under the bridge.
I would agree with these points entirely
Why are you obsessing about one standards group with negligible deployment
influence whose price of recognition appears likely to be destroying the
whole project?
Not really. It's going to salvage the project from the internal frictions
that have beset it ove the last n months
You can do just as well by setting up your own standards group like we did
with the Web consortium when the IETF started to become a threat to the
success of the Web.
I think that you are under-rating yourselves. Don't set up an SPF
Leadership
Council, call it the Accountable Messaging Standards Group, then ratify
the
spec yourselves. Whatever flaws there might be in SPF are probably beyond
redemption at this point. Hold elections for the leadership and you will
be
instantly more credible than the IETF.
I am inclined to agree here too, but I suggest that we're already on a safe
road to the SPF council, and shouldn't abandon it now. Once that little
exercise is over, we can look at the bigger picture.
One thing is for sure - - this mail list has most of the e-mail brains on
it, and would be an excellent place to draw AMSG people.
The importance of a standards body is who takes part and who listens to
it.
And how it is set up in the first place - no smoke-free back rooms ;-)
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492