Please reference in the appeal SPF Council resolution that authorized
this appeal (that is if it is added to SPF Council website by the time
the appeal is filed).
Personally while I think that while the appeal is well written (good work
Julian!), it seems a bit too long for IETF appeal (though it might be ok
since you separated it into summary ad full version). But I had a feeling
that it can't be avoided and at some point suggested having a draft be
written that specifies what is wrong with SID and then file short appeal
summarizing it with reference to the draft for full information. I don't
think there is enough time for that right now but if appeal has to be done
further to entire IESG or IAB in the future then this can be considered.
I also think that emphasis should be not only on the reuse of the v=spf1
records but in more general way that SID draft repurposes existing
standard and experimental fields and records in incompatible ways
creating problem not only for those who agreed to participate in its
experiments but for those who have nothing to do with experiment.
But I'm fine with not having all this specified in appeal, but having it
brought up in the discussion if they happen at the ietf main list.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
William Leibzon wrote:
Now I note that since Wayne said that SPF Council made a resolution to
go with appealing the decision it is COUNCIL'S responsibility to
follow up on this resolution (and QUICKLY!). That means you either
decide who of the SPF Council members would be making an appeal next
week or you deligate to to somebody else, but you can't just leave it
up in the air as time to will run out very very soon.
The SPF council resolution said that *someone* should prepare an
appeal, not *a council member*.
True. The resolution says:
| Someone should prepare an appeal to the IETF in case we cannot get MS to
| stop re-using v=spf1 records for PRA checking. The appeal shall be
| submitted to the IETF if there are no clear indications that MS is
| willing to open serious discussions about this within 7 days [as of
| 2005-07-19]. Julian will prepare the appeal it if nobody else will.
Julian said he would do it, but Julian has also explained to me on IRC
that he has been very busying doing work that he gets paid for right
now. Unless something changes, I think you should probably not expect
him to have the time to file the appeal.
Not exactly true. Yes, I am busy, but I also said that I would prepare the
appeal if nobody else would. It seems that nobody else has prepared one,
so I went ahead and did it, making use of Frank's write-up (thanks!).
William is right about running out of time. To be quite honest, I
thought time had already run out.
The IESG announced the publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 as an
Experimental RFC on 2005-06-29[1]. That sets the appeal deadline for
Monday, 2005-08-29.
I have attached my draft for the appeal. Please comment on it.
Julian.
References:
1. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg01356.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDCj5XwL7PKlBZWjsRAoq9AJ9+58icxgGPjHZjHiU0E7n3D7ciiQCeON7C
NhOuIEY3aJPFpoHZDWGsCIs=
=Uv3o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net