In <42A485A4(_dot_)1DD7(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
wayne wrote:
we had a vote on the council and I lost
No, you supported 2300u, it was an unanimous vote (3 yes).
Ugh.
I believe you are referring to the 2300u motion from the 2005-06-02
meeting, which reads:
23:00 <Julian> Motion: No receiver policy shall be formally suggested
(MAY), recommended (SHOULD), or prescribed (MUST) in the
definitions of the "TempError" and "PermError" result
codes. In particular, those result codes' definitions
shall not explicitly suggest a treatment similar to any
other result codes. However, formal recommendations for
the choice of SMTP reply codes shall be included.
So, a strict reading of this says that SMTP reply codes for PermError
shall be included.
I confess I did not read this motion that closely and would have
objected if I had.
The context, that this must be understood in includes these
statements, both before and after the motion was made, but before the
vote:
22:48 <Julian> Do we want a motion confirming the current wording?
22:54 <Julian> Motion: No receiver [... failed wording deleted ...]
22:56 <grumpy> Motion: the current language for PermError and SoftFail
is fine and we should move on.
22:56 * grumpy is only have serious with that motion...
22:57 <Julian> grumpy: The problem with "the current language is
fine"-style motions is that they preclude the possibility
of changing other parts of the language later.
23:02 <MarkK> s/SHOULD/should/, you mean?
23:02 <Julian> MarkK: No... My motion implies that the current wording
is fine.
The actual voting happened at one minute later, at 23:03.
So, what is in the draft remains unchanged. This may not be the
letter of the motion, but it appears to me to be the intent.
The PermError defintion was set by the 2140u motion made on
2005-05-25:
21:40 <Julian> Motion: In section 2.5.7, "PermError", the second
sentence, "Checking software SHOULD treat this result
similar to the SoftFail result", shall be replaced
by: "This signals an error condition that requires
manual intervention to be resolved, as opposed to the
TempErr result." (or semantically equivalent
wording).
I voted yes for this, but it was a compromise. It isn't what I
would have done if the choice was just up to me.
So, unless the other SPF council members object, I am going to assume
that Julian just wasn't as clear in the wording of his motion as he
intended to be.
-wayne