wayne wrote:
From our perspective, it is a very bad technical change.
No. It's not only "very bad", it's plain wrong. And in
violence of one of MARID's rare "rough consensus" decisions
(also known as "Olson objection").
From the IETF's point of view, it is just another reason why
SPF and SenderID are horribly muddled and neither should be
promoted.
They are not "horribly muddled", there's a clear "SHOULD NOT"
in the spec., and everybody who can spell 'sendmail' knows that
2821 and 2822 are different documents. Something is "muddled"
there, but that was long before SPF, and after 821 / 822. And
this was also the very reason to invent RMX and later SPF.
MS will *REALLY* not want to see SPF standardized and
SenderID not standardized.
Yes, embrace - extend - extinguish. But their PRA-concept just
isn't good enough at the moment, "worldwide upgrade" won't fly.
Such an explicit end-run around them could causethem to stop
trying to be even handed and go off on their own.
Let the IAB decide about the critical four letters in XXXX 3.4,
it's a technical problem, no "explicit end-run". As you said
it's already clear (thanks to William, BTW) that PRA won't be
a PS any time soon. These 2476bis / 2822 issues aren't their
(MS) fault - like the 1123 / 2821 design flaw isn't "our" fault.
I see little that we could gain by going outside the IETF
and a lot to lose.
ACK. Our next "inside" steps (in addition to any IAB appeal)
are relevant: Lessons learned / implementation reports / the
works. Maybe also an IETF WG or an IETF liaison. Bye, Frank
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
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