On Mon, 23 May 2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 10:12 AM -0700 5/23/05, william(at)elan.net wrote:
as far as existing document, Wayne is right - its intent (as well
as that of Mark's post-MARID draft) as understood by people at spf-discuss
is to document existing ongoing use of SPF Classic (aka spf1) and not a
replacement for MARID documents. Its very unfortunately that this confusion
has only become obvious now after many months.
Just to be really, really clear here: the author of the draft and the
AD sponsoring the draft did not get its *intent* right? So
here "intent" is "whatever was understood by spf-discuss"
as its participants followed these events?
I think that everyone thought they understood the intent, but different
people might have had different view of it that we did not share it with
each other.
I don't know about Mark, but I would be surprised if his view is
substantially different than that of Wayne or me, i.e. that draft he
was sending was documenting SPF1 and not a replacement for spf2 protocol
as that would have needed appropriate scoping specification.
Do not assume that my views represent a general view of majority of people
at spf (especially as most of them are not involved in IETF and may not
be as familiar with how your process works). For once on this very issue
in September/Oct, I was arguing for waiting couple months and using that
time to finish scoping and syntax if possible making it compatible with
existing spf1 (which would be default mailfrom scope), but others did not
want to wait and I finally thought that existing draft could be sent in
without it and that scoping be introduced by separate draft (which in a
way Microsoft did, but their scoping is really spf2.0 and is not compatible),
that would have allowed the draft to go as both post-marid EXPERIMENTAL
work and SPF1 classic and satisfy everyone.
There are also obvious other places where I'd have preferred if spf worked
differently (like using _smtp._tcp prefix) and I'm still hoping some of
that can be done in the future spf version, but for right now we all had
to come to consensus on one particular document and that is spf-classic-01
that you have. I imagine you don't follow discussion on spf-discuss, but
don't assume that it is that easy to come to consensus on even this
document, there are a lot of small issues that still keep popping up.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net