Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:
Part of the problem: The RFC editor seems to think SPF2.0 is
a successor to SPFv1.
Where do you gather that from? Has he said something to that effect?
De jure, there isn't such a thing as SPF v2 yet. Neither de facto, there
is just a handful of wanna-be Sender-ID records that use "v=spf2.0"
syntax.
As long as this problem is not eliminated, all discussion about exact
wording is useless as the words are used in a different context.
Agreed. If there really is such a misunderstanding, we need to eliminiate
it.