On Wednesday, 2005/05/18, the SPF council met and discussed the
following SPF I-D issues, as requested by people on spf-discuss. As
Julian (SPF council secretary) mentioned during the meeting, minutes
will probably not be out before the next scheduled council meeting set
for Sunday 2005/05/22.
In light of the fact that I've already sent the -01 I-D off to the
IETF, I'm going to give an unofficial summary of what was decided on
these issues.
In <x44qd2i1t8(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wayne
<wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> writes:
I have found the following items about the draft that people would
like a ruling from the council on:
For SPF council review: Syntax error = Perm error = Message should be
rejected?
Scott Kitterman (Sat Apr 30 2005 - 16:54:21 EDT)
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200504/0293.html
This language has been updated and can be found in the second
paragraph of section 2.5.7
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6.html#anchor11
Scott said he could live with the current language:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0400.html
This issue was discussed and since no concensus was obvious, it was
decided to return to discussing this on spf-discuss.
My opinion: I think it is *critical* that we maintain compatiblity
with previous drafts and existing implementations. Some of the
discussion on #spf-council indicated a desire to change things to what
is "best" rather than what "exists", and I think that would be a
mistake.
This issue is related to the SPF(NXDOMAIN) issue, mentioned below and
I think we need to decide both of them carefully.
For SPF council review: MUST accept source routes
Frank Ellermann (Fri May 06 2005 - 02:10:28 EDT)
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0140.html
no change in -01pre6 was made for this.
After some discussion, several of the council members decided that we
should send this back to spf-discuss in order to get a better
understanding of the issue.
For SPF council review: NOT RECOMMENDED
Scott Kitterman (Sat May 07 2005 - 13:40:28 EDT)
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0198.html
This language has been updated and can be found in the second
paragraph of section 2.4
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6.html#anchor5
The update language for this was approved.
For SPF council review: Definition of PASS, Policy for shared MTAs
Scott Kitterman (Sat May 07 2005 - 14:22:12 EDT)
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0204.html
This language has been updated and can be found in the second
paragraph of section 10.4 and 9.4
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre6.html#cross-user-forgery
The update language for this was approved.
For SPF Council review - PASS Definition - was: People keep
misunderstanding what "Pass" and "Neutral" mean
Scott Kitterman (Tue May 17 2005 - 15:37:45 EDT)
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0491.html
No change in -01pre7 was made for this.
Again, this is still being discussed here, so this was not voted on.
As an addition agenda item, William suggested that the council take a
vote on whether we want to pursue Proposed Standard or Experimental
status for the I-D, and I agree. (We could also do Informational.)
The SPF council confirmed that we should try for Proposed Standard
status instead of Experimental.
I [Julian] wouldd like to vote on:
* the SPF(non-existent-domain) == "PermError" issue,
* the s/prefix/$SEMANTICALLY_DESCRIPTIVE_NAME/ issue,
* the "section 9.3.1.2 does not warn about the 63 character limit" issue.
You can read about all of those in
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200505/0171.html
The first item, SPF(NXDOMAIN) was voted on, but because the result was
a tie, it did not pass.
The second item was decided that we should discuss it more here since
we couldn't immediately come up with a good
$SEMANTICALLY_DESCRIPTIVE_NAME.
The last item was not discuss or voted on because it is a complicated
issue, we had already been in the meeting for 3 hours, and it was
getting very late in Europe.
-wayne