In <x4y81mp1yl(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wayne
<wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> writes:
In <200601120014(_dot_)35203(_dot_)julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian
Mehnle <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
This may be a good way of doing things, but I see no reason that should
be in the draft. It is already too long.
Then why don't you delete such sentences as...
[ ...] I strongly disagree, and so I can see some
justification for leaving those explanations in.
I guess I should be clearer here:
When we asked for the IESG to approve the I-D, it was supposed to be
in the absolute final form. You are not supposed to make anything
except minor editorial changes to the RFC after the IESG approval, and
you should try hard to get the I-D in such a shape that you could live
with zero changes.
As a result, I am *very* reluctant to make any changes now. I would
have been *much* more eager to delete those sections before the IESG
approval happened.
We may not actually have much choice in the matter. The RFC Editor
may not allow us to change much.
One thing that needs to be fixed is the language about giving a
PermError if the TXT and SPF (type99) records don't match. As we
realized after we got the new RR number, these records can get out of
sync and there is nothing we can do to prevent that. Such a change is
*not* an editorial change and I will need to go back to the IETF Area
Director (Ted Hardie) and/or the IESG and make sure such a change is
ok. Or, at least, that's what Andy Newton recommended that I do.
-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