An editorial comment.
In the proceeding post, I wrote in part:
------------------------------------------
To my mind, there are two questions:
* Is the statement in the schlitt draft concerning the
recommended usage of SPFv1 records with any other protocol
appropriate?
The IESG in closing marid stated:
The working group chairs and Area Advisor intend to ask
that the editors of existing working group drafts put
forward their documents as non-working group submissions
for Experimental RFC status.
The existing working group drafts did not contain such a
recommendation, but rather proposed spf2.0 and defined
scopes for SMTP mail from and Purported Responsible
Authority, so avoiding the problem.
------------------------------------------
This should have been written as follows:
------------------------------------------
To my mind, there are two questions:
* Is the statement in the schlitt draft concerning the
recommended usage of SPFv1 records with any other protocol
appropriate?
The IESG in closing marid stated:
|The working group chairs and Area Advisor intend to ask
|that the editors of existing working group drafts put
|forward their documents as non-working group submissions
|for Experimental RFC status.
The existing working group drafts did not contain such a
recommendation, but rather proposed spf2.0 and defined
scopes for SMTP mail from and Purported Responsible
Authority, so avoiding the problem.
------------------------------------------
I trust this clarifies matters.
John