wayne wrote:
(PTB == "Powers That Be"?)
Yes, I recall this episode, but I guess that MS spends more $
per second for legal advice than ISOC in a decade, maybe they
know what they're doing. Or maybe not, the warning was clear.
[who is DEA]
It might be a good idea to just ask.
I tried once on the general list (no reaction), and once in a
private mail to an IETF veteran (no IESG member at the moment),
but he had no idea. Some anonymous folks helping Scott and
Ted with reviews is a harmless guess.
Maybe because there's yet no sp2.0/helo document ?
There isn't a spf2.0/mfrom document either.
Oops, right. '"mfrom" is defined in [SPF]'. Makes sense, you
certainly define a "MAIL FROM identity". Maybe they should say
'"mfrom" corresponds to the "MAIL FROM identity" in [SPF]'.
there is potential for confusion.
"mfrom" is IMHO really compatible with a "MAIL FROM identity",
incl. cases like postmaster(_at_)HELO-FQDN(_dot_)
[positional modifiers]
What other records should it affect, spf2.1 ? Certainly not
v=spf1, this idea is unfortunately incompatible with v=spf1.
Well, I guess all SPFv2 records should be affected, not just
2.0.
No problem, it's a cute idea. Okay, you and William probably
disagree... ;-)
I was pointing out problems that the IESG should know about
before they finish the current, ongoing voting to approve
publication of these drafts. Yes, it is perfectly
understandable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be
fixed before publication.
That stuff can't be published as is. It has this one SHOULD
conflicting with a NOT RECOMMENDED, a SHOULD NOT RECOMMENDED
posted several times on different lists including IETF general
plus several mails, it can't fly.
At the moment 1 "yes" (Ted as shepherd counted as yes), 4 "no
ojections", 4 "discuss", 4 didn't participate. The note at
the end says "(2/3) 9 yes+no objection needed to pass". Maybe
that means 2 thirds of 9 = 6 (?) Or it means that 2/3 of 13
is 9, yes, I guess that's it.
Bye, Frank