wayne wrote:
The reference to 2476 is information, not normative.
There is no reason hold up the SPF draft for 2476-bis.
Not strictly required, yes, but from an editorial POV I'd
do it in the natural order. There's also no reason I'm
aware of why 2576bis still has no number.
[ABNF]
All the updates that I know of are pretty minor.
Last time we discussed it here some months ago it got so
complex that we didn't finish it at this time. I'm also
not sure how much leeway you have to rewrite things, ABNF
is critical. One of the controversial points was CIDR /0.
The IESG has made it clear that the SPF spec will not be
published before the SenderID specs are ready.
The IESG is not more part of the landscape as far as SPF is
concerned, they approved it, added a note, changed the note
after two appeals, and that was that. The RfC-editor is an
independent entity.
I can only hope that the RFC editor doesn't require the
major cleanup of the SenderID drafts that the so very much
need.
Now that would be a really good idea. Kick your co-author,
without his okay there would another sort of delay. While
he's at it he could also cleanup lyon-senderid-core. But
no substantial changes, that can't work: Authors could get
an IESG approval, and twist it into any direction they like
afterwards ? Can't fly, too obvious, there must be a rule.
If that happens, we could be in for a very long wait.
You just said in another article that they want the number
for marketing purposes. If that's the case they'd be also
interested to cause no unnecessary publication delays. Bye
-------
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