-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
After the discussion of Chuck's resignation as Chair of the SPF Council -
<http://mid.gmane.org/42CD6CD6(_dot_)8000407(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com> - the
Council declined
to follow Chuck's last agenda...
| 1. Minutes.
| 2. Chair's report.
| 3. ED's report.
| 4. The unethical IESG approval of the v=spf1 abuse for PRA.
...posted 77 miutes before his resignation.
Chuck himself made that agenda obsolete by resigning. Just look at item
#2; also, clearly a lot of other urgent decisions had to be made, so we
chose to modify the agenda.
The log was cut off exactly 20:52: [...]
The log continues:
21:17 <grumpy> Uh, I guess we should have pointed out that the
council has moved into executive session to discuss
strategy that can not be discussed in public
21:40 <grumpy> We have decided to table items 8 and 9 pending
the results of further discussions during the
emailauthentication summit on Tuesday
Anything else from 20:52 to 21:40 was censored, see also
<http://mid.gmane.org/E1Drjnj-0001pc-Fs(_at_)backbone(_dot_)schlitt(_dot_)net>
Wayne requested a private discussion in #spf-private. Nothing was censored
from #spf-council.
In other words there's no public strategy against the IESG approval of
the PRA "experiment" with v=spf1 policies, and the Council talks in
secret with the MAAWG (Doubleclick etc.) keeping the Community in the
dark.
Mostly true -- the e-mail authentication summit doesn't have anything to do
with MAAWG, though. I don't like the secrecy either, but the politics
involved seem to require it. Expect most (if not all) of it to get
revealed soon.
I can only hope that the Community is not tempted to accept these
MAAWG-delaying games. An appeal before the IETF meeting in Paris has
serious chances, that's what they want to avoid.
I don't know where you're getting the supposed MAAWG involvement from.
Today I presented the proposal to promote a common SPFv2 standard provided
that MS stops to check PRA against SPFv1 records. Yes, this has been
worked out at the MAAWG conference, but our current strategy has nothing
to do with MAAWG in particular.
We have not forgotten about the appeal deadline. There are just some
things that need to be found out before we can make any further decisions,
and the e-mail authentication summit poses a good opportunity for that.
Sorry, we have decided not to say anything more about this for now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC0aoqwL7PKlBZWjsRAijgAJ40SU4myWIfBxZVjnPizydw9olzrACglotm
4GAKKhPIJMhwmX90jt4zJ3E=
=rhRv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----