David MacQuigg wrote:
The IETF doesn't want to get involved in the SPF/SenderID
battle.
"The IETF" is anybody writing on IETF lists, that includes you.
The best you can expect from them is no interference in how
each group defines its own method
The best I expect is Bruce seriously trying to find all bugs,
and of course I hope that he won't find any serious bug. Not
counting "I hate it" as bug, that's already clear.
If I understand the IETF "consensus" process, any
uncompromising minority can block a standard.
That's not the idea, trolls are no serious technical objection.
I expect that will block both SenderID and SPF for many more
years.
Do you have a serious technical objetion against SPF ? Besides
from being "baroque" and the known issue of its TXT RR ? It
was already reviewed by the IESG and -00 passed without a "new
I-D requested" (unlike Sender-ID).
And the Sender-ID folks will probably love all the processing
limits and error handling stuff in -01, otherwise they'd simply
roll their own "protocol" I-D based on Mark's drafts.
<crystalball>
don't forget about CSV. They have a lot of influence with
the IETF, and a strong dislike of both SenderID and SPF.
Of course Dave has a lot of influence, he wrote STD 11 and the
ABNF stuff and tons of more RfCs. That doesn't mean that he
will kill anything only because he doesn't like it. He will
look for serious bugs. And he's too smart to confuse Sender-ID
with SPF. </crystalball>
we all know who has the biggest consortium going.
Sure, the various free and open source "communities". Bye.