spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF

2004-11-23 05:55:40
Please wait for the council.  I expect that council will, in its early work 
come to a (possibly
third) draft which will be the truest of "what is SPF Classic".  It likely to 
look more like Schlitt
then Lentczner, but that would be the for the council to decide.

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of 
Stephane
Bortzmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:36 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR
type for SPF


On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:15:38AM -0500,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> wrote
 a message of 47 lines which said:

Yesterday, I had the pleasure to present the DNS issues of SPF to
the IETF DNS Extensions Working Group (also known as
"namedroppers"). The main question was the allocation of new DNS
Resource Record (RR) type, per draft-lentczner-spf-00, 3.1.1.
...
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.

Now, we should decide. Before I request a formal review to the IETF
DNS Extensions Working Group, there is something to
clarify. Unfortunately, we have currently two drafts:
draft-lentczner-spf-00
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lentczner-spf-00) and
draft-schlitt-spf-00
(http://www.midwestcs.com/spf/spf_classic_libspf2/draft-schlit
t-spf-00.txt,
NOT submitted to the IETF).

There seem to be a consensus here that draft-lentczner-spf-00 does not
represent the current state of SPF Classic and that
draft-schlitt-spf-00 is better. But Wayne Schlitt repeated several
times that he will not submit his draft to the IETF, and I cannot ask
an IETF Working Group to consider a document that has not been
submitted.

So, I have several choices:

1) Ask the IETF Working Group to review draft-lentczner-spf-00 and the
hell with its weaknesses.

2) Submit draft-schlitt-spf-00 to the IETF myself.

Advices? Several candidates to the SPF Council stated that they regard
this issue (having an official SPF standard) as a priority.


-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features 
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription,
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>