In <42729D15(_dot_)45A0(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
something on the agenda that no one could remember *what*
was supposed to be decided.
Guessing: They put it on the agenda because they wanted
some input from you.
Maybe, but generally when someone's name is put after the agenda item
it is because that person wants to say something on the subject. My
name was put after the "DNS load" item, but I did not submit a request
to the chair (Chuck) to add it, and no one remembered who did or why.
Radu tested what he had in his mail
folders, and he found some ugly cases of overly complex
policies.
Yes, I read those discussions, but even knowing that, know one could
bring up a specific issue that needed to be addressed or decided. If
someone understands what that item is about, please let me and/or
Chuck know so it can be re-added to the agenda.
at least another month in order to actually get the SPF
spec through the IETF.
Here I'd guess that _one year_ after -01 was submitted is
more realistic. You're going for a "draft standard", that
means a full IETF "last call".
Minor nit: I would be going for a Proposed Standard, a Draft Standard
would be the next step. SPF already qualifies for almost every
criteria of a Draft Standard, other than the required time spent as a
Proposed Standard, but that is irrelevant for now.
They'll all mobilize their reserve troops. MAPS, Sender-ID,
every FUSSP patent holder on earth (there are legions) will
crawl from under his stone for this IETF event of the year.
This "draft standard" is double or nothing, and one aspect
of this "nothing" is the IETF as a mere collateral damage.
Yeah, I'm expecting lots of that kind of stuff. I'm going to try to
stick very closely to the party line of "this documents what exists,
not what should be". Of course, there are things I don't like about
the current SPF spec, and things that I like that I know that other
reasonable people don't like. I am going to try hard to sidestep
those issues by focusing on the usefulness of describing what is out
there now.
Somehow I don't think that an SPF Proposed Standard would be the "IETF
event of the year". SPF is old news.
-wayne