wayne wrote:
I think the result is *MUCH* clearer, more complete,
and more accurate.
+1
For one minor exception see a rececent spf-help problem:
<http://mid.gmane.org/42B332ED(_dot_)574C(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
I think they have given the "two year experimentation
time" as a stalling tactic
s/they/Mr. Hardie/ or s/they/Redmond's IESG liaisons/ ?
One major opportunity to find some final nits would be
a proper "IETF last call" instead of the "experimental"
bullshit. It's a very bad thing if folks like Bruce
or Keith were never really forced to check all details.
I think we need to finish what we have started and not
lose focus.
+1
There are many things to be done with the spec. as is:
E.g. update some old implementations against the new
test suite. If you don't have tools to create a test
suite directly from the grammar and do it manually I'm
interested to help (gawk or at least in theory).
E.g. discuss relevant features starting with Scott's
evergreen HARDPASS op=auth or Williams's "match" stuff.
E.g. grab some SRS and VARA ideas to update the long
expired draft-mengwong-sender-rewrite-01.txt
E.g. anything related to the new Web page. If there
are pages where the W3C or WDG validators say "FAIL"
(excl. CSS) I could interpret the error messages and
fix it, for a trivial example see:
<http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/spf-council.htm>
E.g. update William's emailredirection-traceheaders
draft. Do something with Dave's email-arch draft -
from my POV Bruce filed "too many [discuss]" and so
I lost track at email-arch-04 waiting for -05.
E.g. help Carl's spamops through the IETF process
with any relevant improvement proposed by Keith, but
without losing it in any irrelevant flamewars.
I think getting SPFv1 widely deployed is much more
important than creating an SPF version 2 or 3.
+1
--
+3 total Bye, Frank