wayne wrote:
something really important
The related "SPF Council" nonsense^Winfo needs an article:
"For information about the SPF Council" etc.
.......................^^^
It's not really important to know that this is IMNSHO crap.
changes_from_draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02pre2.xml.diff.txt
Most of the time I only read this part, thanks.
* Minor editorial changes that I caught on a final re-read
of the spec were made.
About a dozen s/email/e-mail/ and the new qualifiers, yes ;-)
* A change log of differences between -01 and -02 was added.
Good. Don't forget to put the PermError codes back in... <eg>
* In section 1.1. "State of this draft", the note about the
draft not being for the IESG review was removed. This
draft *is* for the IESG review.
Fine, and using their crystal ball they will clearly see that
you now want a review as a "proposed standard" with a proper
"last call", or how is that supposed to work ?
Serious question, I didn't test the procedure beyond the point
of "submit I-D", and Charles' competing I-D disturbed my dummy
test I-D (news-nntp-uri).
Bye, Frank