spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED

2005-05-08 10:28:01

On Sun, 8 May 2005, wayne wrote:

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 would also advise people to remember that the rules are different for EXPERIMENTAL status and that EXPERIMENT can be limited as the experiment author wishes it to be. The IESG would not be right to decide that particular experiment should not go forward because its rules are not wide enough to cover needs of another experiment!

In case of conflict its in fact their prerogogive to request changes so that two experiments were to use some kind of identification that could easily tell their records apart.

So what should be important for SPF is to make sure the IESG understands
that SID drafts and SPF drafts are not going in together but as separately
proposed experiments.

P.S. Yes, I know Wayne and others do not think this can be considered an experiment and believe spf-classic draft qualifes for draft standard status, but bear in mind the current situation IETF is in and political
realities and please play along.

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