wayne wrote:
It is quite possible that we could have had an RFC by now.
Not without 2476bis, last time I checked it had no number.
In theory you could replace it by 2476, they are almost
identical. But I'm not sure how willing they'd be to
accept this on your say so.
You also planned several ABNF updates confirmed by the
Community. Last state I know was "not yet ready", that
was some months ago.
An IAB appeal will most likely push back an RFC for at
least 6 months.
It would be nice if *it* waits for a decision, otherwise an
appeal would be kind of pointless, the published RFCs never
change, and the IAB decision as erratum would be odd. One
obvious way to delay *it* is of course to hold v=spf1 back.
But it's not necessarily the only way, and *it* isn't SPF:
The appeals were about four characters in senderid-core and
incompatibilities of senderid-pra with 2822 (and maybe 2476).
There's no appeal against SPF (besides, that would be too
late now), and the worst you can say about SPF is that our
<toplabel> ABNF does not exactly reflect what 3696 says.
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