spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Standards Strategy

2005-05-19 16:24:44
David MacQuigg wrote:
 
How do they decide what objections are serious?

See 
<http://mid.gmane.org/200505191034(_dot_)47111(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>

Of course an ideal, not always reality.  Just like you decide
what you take serious based on what you have read before from
the same persons.  They are busy, they can't read everything.

I hope it's clear that I'm guessing, based on what happened in
and after MARID with SPF.  Plus reading the general IETF list,
and a few other lists like LTRU, USEFOR, w3c.uri
 
Consensus is not defined in the documents I have found

Paul's "taobis" is nice (and IIRC I got this hint from Bruce):
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-taobis-02>

a well-organized faction will always have at least the 1/3
necessary to block anything.

WGs don't vote.  The worst they do is "hum" in a face-to-face
meeting.  Find anything more archaic than the IETF and I'd bet
you have found the Vatican... <eg>

someone or some group has to take the time to understand all
the arguments, and decide which is valid.

That's the WG Chair or Chairs.  They can exclude WG members for
some time.  They also decide what consensus is.  If they screw
up badly you could appeal and / or call the AD, there are many
checks and balances.

just to see first-hand how the process works with something
so simple it is hard to imagine a valid objection.

Learning by doing is an idea.  But silence can be deafening -
when was the last article in e.g. MASS, April ?  Okay, it's no
IETF WG, but it once wanted to be a WG.

It is my understanding that the forwarding problem and the
DNS load problem are serious worries

The latter is certainly serious, but IMHO addressed by Wayne's
processing limits.  And the former is just the one and only
feature of SPF.  Feature or bug is often a matter of taste, and
SPF is a voluntary system (for domain owners as publishers, and
for MX admins as checkers)

large-scale deployment is needed to resolve these issues
.
It's okay if most spammers adopt it, everybody else has time.

We need a knockout punch.

SPF is no FUSSP, and I don't believe in any FUSSP.  It's also
not directly about spam, it's only about the d*mned forgeries.

my guess is Microsoft doesn't care

Possible, otherwise they'd submit drafts more often.  OTOH we
also took our time to go from -00 to -01.  Adding Mark -01 is
of course already the 3rd post-MARID v=spf1 draft.

They don't need IETF to establish a de-facto standard.

Is there any huge increase of sp2.0/pra policies you know of ?

What is happening with CSV and IETF?  Is this a possible
standard?

Sure, same procedure as for v=spf1, more drafts, "last call",
etc.  If there are enough supporters for the ground-work like
writing I-Ds, implementing it, publish DNS records, test, etc.

                           Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>