spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IAB appeal or not - please comment (Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [RFC State] <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02> has changed state)

2006-01-24 18:17:42
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:19:19 -0800 (PST) "william(at)elan.net" 
<william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, wayne wrote:

Now would be a good time to decide whether you want to file an IAB
appeal or not.  There isn't much use in having the RFC editor do stuff
if we are just going to go into another 3-6 month delay.

I think it would be good to hear from the community at large on this
issue now and this can then be used by SPF Council when making a final
decision on it (I personally see council more as being body that decided 
based on community consensus rather then makes decisions based only on 
opinion of its members).

For myself I've decided not to file an appeal on decision regarding 
Resent- fields even though I strongly disagree with IESG that approved 
internet-wide experiments should be allowed to directly contradict 
existing standards. That said the issue before spf-discuss is in regards 
to its own appeal and conflicts between SPF and SID with using v=spf1 
records - so this is what needs to be discussed. But if the result is 
that we decide to file an IAB appeal, I may seek to attach comments 
regarding conflicts with existing standards and how IESG decided on it
as part of that (without filing separate appeal).


I would suggest no IAB appeal.  We got as good as we are going to get from 
the first round of appeals.  The 'cost' of the time lost exceeds the 
potential gain of an appeal.  We need to get an RFC and move on.

Scott K

-------
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: IAB appeal or not - please comment (Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [RFC State] <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02> has changed state), Scott Kitterman <=