spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Successes and failures of the SPF project in 2005

2006-01-11 13:56:57
In <43C56AA7(_dot_)2BC0(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

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.

The reference to 2476 is information, not normative.  There is no
reason hold up the SPF draft for 2476-bis.


You also planned several ABNF updates confirmed by the
Community.  Last state I know was "not yet ready", that
was some months ago.

All the updates that I know of are pretty minor.  


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.

The IESG has made it clear that the SPF spec will not be published
before the SenderID specs are ready.  I can only hope that the RFC
editor doesn't require the major cleanup of the SenderID drafts that
the so very much need.  If that happens, we could be in for a very
long wait.


-wayne

-------
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