wayne wrote:
First off, I would like to apologize for my absence on
spf-discuss.
Okay, taking some time off is no problem, after all I did the
same for two months. OTOH as you see "we" have lost what used
to be a "SPF community". The only ideas posted on this list
came from Radu for a long long time. That I didn't like some
of his ideas is beside the point.
And the -01pre stuff is really old, the earliest announcement
was for Jan 03. So now you ask us to wait for a -01pre4, ok.
I've no idea what happened with my input to -01pre2. I've no
idea what Julian talks about when he mentions his input for a
-01pre1. I don't know who said what about -01pre3 elsewhere.
In fact I didn't know that a -01pre3 exists, I stumbled over
it in the IRC log.
The official state is still -00, plus the published amendments
by the Council: "zone cut" out, "HELO SHOULD" in, and stick
to "NOT RECOMMENDED". There are people on spf-devel (not only
Radu) who don't know this and apparently plan to implement SPF
draft -00 as is.
It's a royal PITA to tell them about unofficial changes on my
say so. It's also a PITA if Andy wastes his energies on an
obscure spf-considerations draft with a complete chapter about
an illusion aka "zone cut". Or if I have to explain this -01
modification again on my say so in ASRG flamewars.
Anyway, all of the drafts can be found at:
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/
Tnx for info, I didn't know this URL.
expect me to ignore all comments on the 01pre3 version.
I'd be more interested on your comments on my comments on the
01pre2 version. But if 01pre4 has no more "SPF-timer" I guess
that we can now ignore most of these old 01pre2 comments.
it is in the same location as the 01pre2 draft that you
reviewed.
It wasn't difficult to remove one erroneous /spf from...
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf/spf_classic_libspf2/
...but I couldn't guess the new and different URL.
To the best of my knowledge, there was only a suggestion
of a note by one IESG member.
But _who_ was this if it wasn't a note "by" the RfC-editor,
but a note "to" the RfC-editor ? Not one of the [Discuss]
statements mentioned this issue. It was not discussed or
decided by the IESG as far as I can see it in the tracker.
You probably know that there's a hot debate on unilateral
descisions by ADs on the general IETF list. Maybe this
obcure and anonymous "RfC editor note" is related to what
they discuss there (Dave Crocker, Keith Moore, and others).
Bye, Frank