On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree. But we need to make it clear to all we consider SPFv1
finished and that we are moving forward. Many of the people I talk to
about SPF all think, the project has been abondoned or replace by SID. I
spend way to much time fixing all the wrong... We need to show we are
alive and kicking! With a clear view of what is and the add ons like op=.
There have been many great ideas posted and many have left like Radu. I
think many have become disenchanted with how things are right now. There
are many signs of life and progress is being made. I just do not want to
loose all that has been done.
Further it's now time to get a formal IETF liaison. We had
already "I dare", and the sequel was "Plan B".
Yes, I agree. If the IETF does not do what we want then maybe we need to
use Plan B. Let's not loose time. We have already lost much. We need to
rally and show we are a force to be reconded with.
--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb(_at_)zenez(_dot_)com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047