spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF 2/3 maybe it is time to get this going.

2005-06-18 11:27:57
Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

I think it needs to be clear on the web site and in
announcements that SPFv1 is as we(The SPF Project) are
concerned a set Standard, regardless of what may be done
else where.
[...]
The SPF project needs to send out the clear message that
SPFv1 is a finished project looking to the future.  This
needs to done in every thing the project publishes or
references.  We need to be clear that we consider SPFv1 a
standard.

Yes.  One thing to do is to add five lines to Wayne's XML:

<!-- no I-D -->
    <?rfc private="SPF draft" ?>
    <?rfc header="Sender Policy Framework" ?>
    <?rfc footer="spf-6-3-options-06" ?>
<!-- no I-D -->

Of course with an appropriate text for private= and footer=.
Then run it through xml2rfc to get the public "SPF standard".

This I-D stuff is all nice and dandy, but it's not what I
want "forever" as a link on my page.  And I also want to be
able to publish SPF drafts like the op= text as part of the
SPF process, not as IETF contribution.

Further it's now time to get a formal IETF liaison.  We had
already "I dare", and the sequel was "Plan B".

                          Bye, Frank



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>