In <42915E8F(_dot_)1C25(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
I also disagree that we couldn't have had a much more
compatible draft submitted to the IETF within the timeframe
that the lentczner draft was submitted.
You were absent when MarkL started. You came back with a ton
of objections when it was almost ready (for its purpose as
fast shot).
I was most certainly *NOT* absent when MarkL started working on what
was to become draft-lentczner-spf-00. I posted several comments
immediately after MarkL posted his outline of what he wanted to do.
In those comments, I said that we should standardize the semantics of
draft-mengwong-spf-01.
I had talked with MarkL quite a bit on the #spf IRC channel, and I
think MarkL and I were well aware of the various areas of
disagreements on the future of SPF and why we disagreed.
I did not participate in all the threads, nor did I post a lot since I
didn't want to repeat myself.
When MarkL posted his last call, I repeated my objections and pointed
out one thing that was in the draft that MarkL had said wasn't in.
In response, MarkL claimed I was "barely heard". Great. Yeah, I
agree, MarkL barely heard what I had to say.
Oct 15 first release of draft-schlitt-spf-00pre1
Oct 16 release of draft-schlitt-spf-00pre2
Nov 3 release of draft-schlitt-spf-00pre4
All claiming to be "libspf2 manuals not intended to be sent
to the IETF", yes. As relevant as say the "op=" SPF draft.
Yes, that is true. However, as MarkL pointed out several times, until
the IETF DEA directorate was created, there really wasn't much rush.
I could have gotten those drafts out sooner if MarkL had sent me the
XML source to the drafts as I asked for, but instead I had to reverse
engineer the source.
If MarkL had wanted to, he could have easily created a -01 version of
his SPF-classic I-D which much more closely matched mengwong-spf-01.
He didn't. It wasn't a time issue. MarkL had a different vision of
SPF.
Dec 22 draft-schlitt-* drafts are official
http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/17
Read: Now this obscure (outside POV) SPF community appears
to have some formal body acting as speaker, and internally
they apparently prepare to replace draft-lentczner. But I
very much doubt that the world at large (incl. IETF / IESG)
has an idea what draft-schlitt-spf-00 might be.
Yeah, we created SPF here, but to many IETFers, anything outside of
the IETF is irrelevant. That was what I kept trying to say to Ted
Hardie, that there is a big difference in perspective. Ted kept
assuming that everything was in the context of the IETF.
the mengwong-spf-0[01] drafts were the official drafts for
5-8 months and the status wasn't controversial.
The mengwong draft was clinically dead after the first bug
in the ABNF was detected. Latest since Sep 15 from my POV:
Oh bunk.
Many people were able to implement perfectly good SPF implementations
with that spec. Yes, it certainly could be improved, but it was not
clinically dead.
the SPF community has always been somewhat seperate from
the IETF.
Not from my POV, since Meng's "CYA" I always wanted an RfC
clearly stating the facts. Not some obscure texts free to
be twisted into whatever MS or Meng like next. And I still
trust that the IETF won't take any shit.
Ok, but spf-discuss existed for 9 months before MARID was created, and
has existed for 6 months after. Even during MARID, the SPF lists were
quite active. If you don't think that means that the SPF community
has always somewhat separate from the IETF, well, I don't know what to
say.
-wayne