On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, wayne wrote:
In <42AE00A2(_dot_)5000000(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com> Chuck Mead
<csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com> writes:
Events of large significance occurred with our project today. Please
stand by for additional news as we have it and can report it.
Most of what we (the SPF council) know has been posted to the
spf-council mailing list. Today's news is:
http://moongroup.com/pipermail/spf-council/2005-June/000306.html
What further fallout will happen, I don't know. The IESG's decision
to not grant a standard track RFC to SPF is not very surprising. The
idea that they are going to hold us back until Microsoft has a chance
to catch up, and to discount the last 1.5 years of SPF deployment in
order to make things "fair" is, well, I wish I could say it was
surprising, but it probably isn't.
What most surprised me is that apparently Meng and MarkL are talking
with Ted, but neither of them have responded to any of my attempts to
communicate with them for quite a while.
Well, lets just say none of this is overly surprising to me....
(although the kind of duality and hiding of real purpose that Ted can
word-smith with his "politically correct" statements is just amazing -
he must have missed his calling of political speech-writing and is
now making up for it in his IESG work ....)
I would recommend people brush up on nuances in IETF procedures (get
Bruce to tech you :) and raise objections if SID drafts are approved for
experimental RFC on the grounds of compatibility and breaking of IETF
standards, in the mean time continue to put pressure IESG that holding
SPF RFC publication based on unresolved issues with SID is not fair and
not appropriate and that publication of SPF draft should not be linked
to publication of SID documents.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net