For discussion...
Where are we now:
1) Have working 'authority' in place - the Council
2) Are about to get effective communications medium in place
- the web site with its own URL
3) Have IETF recognition - the Experimental draft
Current problems and issues:
1) M$ abuse of V1 records
2) No satisfactory resolution of 'forwarding issue'
3) Market confusion over whether SID/SPF2 supersedes SPF1
4) Various technical proposals for 'next generation' SPF to be
discussed, analysed, and documented
Proposal:
a) Define quickly a SPF3.0 based on the existing SPF 1 feature set
b) Include within SPF3.0 records support for multiple entity tests (incl. PRA)
c) Declare SPF1 obsolete and replaced by SPF3.0
d) Encourage all existing publishers to migrate their records from SPF1 to SPF3
a.s.a.p.
e) After this is done, start to consider new / modified features, as part of an
SPF3.1
f) Start separate/parallel exercise on the 'forwarding issue'
Rationale:
IMHO the really big confusion out there is that many important players are
getting/giving the impression that SPF1 is obsolete.
Don't spend time analysing why or who did this, or getting stuck on conspiracy
theories, just accept it as a 'fact of life'. We can't roll back the clock or
cry 'foul', once perceptions move on, that's it.
Arguing that SPF1 is 'the real thing' when people have heard of an SPF2 is a
loser's strategy.
We need to trump SPF2/SID by moving on a generation a.s.a.p. to SPF3.
Don't slow down the 3.0 version by adding lots of extra test features, FOCUS on
the record format - giving it the ability to support SPF1 tests, those tests
defined in SID, and other tests to be defined in the future.
Don't in any way make it 'anti-M$' - make sure that the record structure
provides the 'hooks' into which PRA (and other proprietary / patented methods
t.b.d) can be inserted.
Or, to put it another way. this is about the third generation open _Framework_,
regardless of the individual tests that can 'plug in' to that framework.
Then have a MASSIVE publicity campaign to make sure everyone understands that
SPF1 and SPF2 have moved on, and encouraging all record publishers to migrate
their SPF1 records to SPF3.
In some ways, this is what some of us started to try to do on the MARID list.
The problem there was that M$ seemed adamant that they were not prepared to
even provide a space for 'mfrom' . Had MARID been done 'properly, what I'm
suggesting now could have been done there and then. But it wasn't, so let's do
it here, now, in a more open, more constructive, less confrontational
atmosphere.
The secondary objective is to establish this list/ web site as 'where SPF
happens', as the _authority_ for everything SPF. If M$ want to contribute
something within the SPF framework, let them bring their proposals here!
So: my recommendation is:
1) SPF3.0 as the next generation integrated Framework / record structure -
a.s.a.p.
2) SPF3.1 for adding new tests, modifying semantics, failure behaviour,
performance modifications etc. etc.
3) Encourage all-comers (incl. M$) to add new tests, features
within this SPF3 'framework'.
I'll try to save up my defence of this proposal into consolidated responses
every day or so, rather than respond to every single posting.
Chris Haynes
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com