In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0505051724270(_dot_)1279(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
On Fri, 6 May 2005, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Sorry, my portrayal is not entirely correct. Wayne _did_ comment once on
my -01pre1 change suggestions, and he applied _some_ of them. Others,
however, he did not apply, and he gave me reasons, to which I replied.
To _that_ reply of mine he did not respond before timing out, so the
controversial parts of my change suggestions are still outstanding. I
will include those in my comments on -01pre5 in my next message.
It might be good idea to make it a policy within SPF Community that
for SPF technical specification, the comments in regards to the
specification should be made publicly (i.e. on this list), unless
these are simple grammer and spelling errors.
This is a good policy, and the failure to follow it is entirely my
fault. As I said in response to Frank's "Open letter to the SPF
council" message:
: I have also been working some on the SPF-classic draft. I'm afraid that
: the working documents have almost exclusively been mentioned on the
: #spf IRC channel. Each revision was made with the assumption that
: "just a few more changes needed to be done, and I'll throw it off to
: the spf-discuss list." Then people come up with lots of good
: suggestions, and I get distracted with other projects and it sits. :-<
I *SHOULD* have finished up the changes earlier. I didn't. I
*SHOULDN'T* have felt that I needed to make limited releases to just
the people on the #spf IRC channel just to prevent more people from
wasting their time. I didn't. The folks who hang around the #spf
channel are not "special" or "more important" than people who hang
around here, it is just that it is really quick to type in a URL into
the channel in a really informal way.
Obviously as some comments can come from outside of this list directly to
the specification listed authors, such authors/editors would also be
expected to provide a summary of those comments and requests for
changes
(and if possible who made the suggestion) and to ask community opinion
about those suggestions.
Yes, I guess I should mention that many comments on the spf-classic-00
draft came from IETF-related mailing lists and the the IESG review.
These comments have also been incorporated into the various
spf-classic-01preXX drafts.
No, I don't have a good summary of all those comments and
suggestions. If someone wants to take the time to look at the various
posts to the namedroppers, ietf-smtp and ieft-822 lists, along with
the comments from the IESG, look to see which comments were applied
and which weren't and post a summary, feel free. Since I can't
accurately remember all of this stuff from the past several months,
this is what I would have to do to provide a summary also.
For what it is worth, I have received very few comments directly via
private email. No messages from the IESG/IETF people, no comments
from the microsoft folks, nothing from Meng or MarkL. Almost
everything was public, even if it was scattered.
I guess my whole point of posting this is to try and reassure everyone
that there hasn't been some huge, backroom cabal that has been driving
everything and everyone else has been left out. The lack of public
disclosure is just because there wasn't anything to disclose.
-wayne