spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What to do about the SPF-classic I-D?

2004-12-03 22:09:18
wayne wrote:

Yeah, getting it right has to be first.

Fine, let's assume we have something with the blessing of the
new council in some weeks (in theory that could happen in 2004,
but no sweat).

I think what csm and PHB have been talking about is that it
may well be more productive to get SPF accepted as a standard
by some other organization, possibly one we create

The text approved by the council _is_ the provisional standard
(plus / minus minor trouble like flamewars with James or me ;-)

The IETF directorate resp. IESG can then accept it as an RfC.
If they find serious bugs we'll fix it.  And if they reject it
without good reasons we can discuss other options.  But they
should get a chance to do the right thing (including to reject
it for technical reasons if we screwed up, excluding delaying
tactics until $company has a hardware FUSSP, or similar crap.)

I think it is very reasonable to keep MarkL involved if he
wants to be involved.

Yes, or Meng, or both.  I don't care about the name of the next
draft, you all contributed to it.  Replace the "schlitt-02" by
"lentczner-01" resp. "mengwong-02" as you see fit.  Maybe the
number of authors is limited to two, then add the third author
to the credits instead of MARID:  "They" did NOT contribute to
SPF, MARID never discussed SPF, excl. some individual members.

                           Bye, Frank