wayne wrote:
I was most certainly *NOT* absent when MarkL started working
on what was to become draft-lentczner-spf-00.
Okay, let's see, we have both sort-by-date and sort-by-author:
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/date.html>
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/author.html
It started to get messy one day after MarkL published "mfrom":
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0509.html>
09-16, MS knew that they lost it (spf1 ~ mfrom, mfrom != pra)
09-21, MARID closed to let MS steal the installed v=spf1 base,
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.mxcomp:5234>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.mxcomp:5236>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss:9928>
<http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/MARID.appeal.txt>
Meng proposes a PR to let the world know that the SPF community
endorses stealing the installed v=pf1 base for PRA. Anne, you,
and almost all others object (09-24):
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0785.html>
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0874.html>
It's very interesting to check old <quote> revisionist </quote>
history, did you recall the next, ScottH explaining RfC 2026 ?
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0930.html>
MarkL volunteers to document v=spf1 as is (09-29):
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0982.html>
Three important articles from you (09-30, 10-01):
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0846.html>
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/0984.html>
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0041.html>
A very hectic day (10-01), MarkL and you:
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0060.html>
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0073.html>
Okay, a plan, MarkL documents v=spf1, you support this idea.
Details like "what to be included" discussed here, later (10-06)
MarkL posts a preview, and you say (10-13):
"I confess that, due to Meng and MS, I have lost most of my
motivation to participate in the SPF project and have not
really reviewed these drafts."
<http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200410/0466.html>
That was the begin of a lot of activity from you again, but
MarkL had simply done what the SPF community wanted (as far
as an editor can assess this) in these interesting two weeks.
Except from four articles (10-07) not related to Mark's draft
you said nothing from (10-05) up to (10-12) about it. While I
now see that one week isn't that long it was an eternity from
my POV:
I had to decide what to do with the appeal, Harald wanted an
explicit ACK to publish it, Ted wanted a version proposing a
remedy, and at this time I had no clear idea how to remedy it,
except from reopening a closed WG would make it only worse.
[BTW, weeks later I found the simple "3710 historic" remedy,
but it was beside the point and far too late for this case.]
I had talked with MarkL quite a bit on the #spf IRC channel
ACK, that would be of course something I hadn't seen.
When MarkL posted his last call, I repeated my objections
Yes, I found it, the (10-13) and later stuff, see above. Now
there might be a subtle difference between our POVs, I trusted
that MarkL is not a part of this obscure conspiracy to steal
the installed v=spf1 base for PRA. I certainly trusted nobody
involved in closing MARID and "shuffling those deck chairs" at
this time.
I had to reverse engineer the source.
PITA, I just had a similar effect with news-nntp-uri-00, some
unclear communication, and now there are two "competing" I-Ds,
silly. But probably better than no I-D at all.
It wasn't a time issue.
From my POV the timing was critical. Of course our POVs are
different, there's nothing wrong with this.
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.
And that was why I needed some time to understand that the SPF
policy for claranet.de had zero effect for xyzzy.claranet.de :-(
Nobody had implemented "zone cut", include_subdomains=yes was
obsolete, the reference implementation does no "zone cut", etc.
It was a mess, protocol-03 and mfrom-00 were the lights at the
end of a long dark tunnel. A tunnel with flamewars between the
libspf vs. libspf2 camps, SRS vs. SES, v=spf1 vs. "united"
It was a long time until the mengwong draft with its ABNF bugs
was finally replaced by something like a proper standard.
it was not clinically dead.
It was under Meng's unilateral control. If it wasn't dead it
was in an agony, MARID was supposed to create something better.
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.
the SPF community has always somewhat separate from the IETF
In that sense I was always somewhat separate from Meng. Bye.