spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New SPFv1 spec: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre2

2005-06-06 06:37:15
wayne wrote:

But STD 66 (3968) offers a correct dec-octet
[...]
I think I found it.  I'm pretty sure you meant RFC3986 not
RFC3968...

Yes, that's it.  It has no "uric" for Martin's Archived-At,
but offers a decent IPv4address.  In an URI STD...  SNAFU.
Bruce tried to kill it _after_ it was already approved, but
that was of course too late.

Hard to tell what you really decided in 2300u.  I certainly
wanted "put the if rejected codes" back.  Julian and Mark
apparently had similar ideas along this line...

<MarkK>  Julian: I do not think we can really be without
         indicating some sort of required action.

<Julian> The motion is just saying that the spec shall not
         make formal recommendations on receiver policy.
         Only _if_ the receiver decides to reject, then we
         make a _formal_ recommendation on what SMTP reply
         code he should use.

...OTOH you did not, but all of you voted "yes".  Drafting
standards by committees is odd.  And a "resolution" is not
always a "solution".  

The next time I try this stunt it will be in the traditional
style:

Whereas the proper DSN codes are shown for Fail rejects,
whereas the proper DSN codes are shown for SoftFail too,
whereas the proper DSN codes are shown for TempError,
whereas these codes don't constitute "receiver policy",
whereas these codes were investigated by the editor,
whereas "if rejected" does not stand for "do reject",
whereas the codes for PermError were mentioned in -00,
whereas the codes for PermError were removed from -01,

        it is henceforth resolved

that the editor puts the PermError codes back in -02,
that the editor says "if rejected" as for TempError,
and that the editor stops to whine about mengwong-01.

                          Bye, Frank