In <NGBBLEIJOEEEBMEIAPBKIENAIAAA(_dot_)scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> Scott
Kitterman <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
Personally, I like NOT RECOMMENDED, but not at the expense of having
an RFC. From the last council meeting: [snip]
Now I have no idea if Meng's right or wrong, but if this is the
sticking point that keeps us from getting an RFC, then we ought not
go down in flames over it because no matter what our RFC says, it
isn't going to stop people doing what they want with v=spf1 records.
I do not believe Meng is correct that we won't get an RFC because of
this NOT RECOMMENDED statement. Rather, I think that we should be
able to convince the IESG that the MARID (SenderID) folks must do what
was decided in the MARID WG. That is, they MUST use only spf2.0
records.
I have two questions for the council:
1. If NOT RECOMMENDED will keep us from getting an RFC, should we change it?
I don't think so.
2. If so, how do we change it?
I think Julian's latest suggested language is the best I've seen so far.
Here's my suggestion for #2....
I suspect that your suggested language wouldn't make the MARID
(SenderID) folks any happier and if the IETF is going to require us to
retroactively make SPF conform to the MARID requirements, that we
won't be able to get an SPF specification adopted as an RFC at all.
-wayne