-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Frank Ellermann writes:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
In section 3.3 of senderid-core makes creates the concept of
"positional modifiers", something that SPFv1 lacks. However,
this change in semantics is not restricted to only spf2.0
records.
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.
SPFv2 != SPFv2.1
v=spf2.0 != v=spf2.1
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.
- From the address headers of your review, I gather that you did not CC it to
the IESG, right? If so, why not?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFClOB9wL7PKlBZWjsRAtTdAKC758K4kKsVu93CT+npCKmPFOhlOACgj24a
jvTecqnM8xha0hatPo9WcZQ=
=raA6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----