Sorry, but I think it is wrong and I intend to bring it to a
vote so that in the future we can point to the vote and
disavow any claims by Meng or Harry or anyone else that SPF
is part of SenderID.
What does that achieve besides warning the public that there is still
uncertainty and argument and they maybe should wait a while?
Do you really achieve your goals by forcing Harry to make a new slide which
shows SenderID layered on top of SPF? That is if you think you can force
anything...
The only thing we need unanimity on is the SPF record format. If you want to
go any further and insist on a set of rules then give the MAIL from rules a
catchy name, like MFR.
Then SPF = the DNS record, Sender-ID Framework = PRA + MFR + csv'
SPF, MFR, csv' are all unencumbered, therefore no problem with FOSS
implementation.
Names change over time, at one time I had a scheme called TAXI, even went as
far as registering TAXI-PKI.com. Today that is called XKMS and SAML.