spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IESG evaluation of SPF

2005-04-07 11:56:01

| RFC Editor Note
| | OLD: | | section 2.4, the final sentence of paragraph 1 reads: | | "Checking other identities against SPF records is NOT RECOMMENDED | because there are cases that are known to give incorrect results." | | NEW: | | "Checking other identities against SPF records is not defined in this
| document."

As I've just now had a chance to see the page and I think the note I you took as a being *by* RFC Editor is actually a note *for* RFC Editor (i.e. its what IESG wants it to change in the draft).

This situation is unclear to me because usually RFC Editor does not have the right to change the draft (beyond spelling errors and corrections to
change references from draft- to RFCxxx and similar) and definitely should
not have the authority to change or remove one of the KEY words (like
"MUST", "SHOULD" or "NOT RECOMMENDED"). RFC Editor do add an additional note to some drafts as recommended by IESG, but this is not the same.

I think that draft author or somebody else from the SPF council should
check with IESG if they really intend to ask RFC Editor to change that section without consent of draft author and if that is so, then this issue should be brought up on the main IETF mail list for discussion
on if such actions are appropriate for individual submission documents
or documents describing ongoing experiment.

--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net


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