It should go without saying there is a lot of "politics" involved and
who benefits most from any of this.
You know I am a supporter of SPF, but lets look at the realities:
- True or not, this group is viewed a "rogue" group,
- Clearly, you don't have the support of the "key cogs,"
- and you are dealing with Microsoft interest here too.
The first and last is not so much the problem as much is the lack of
support of various strong people as probably the most significant reason
why this "appeal" concept is well, "spitting against the wind."
Who do you think they (IETG/IAB) people talk to when they pick up a
phone to contact and/or read input from so called "necessary folks" to
get some decision advice? Even then, when it comes to a choice, it
will be very hard to decide against Microsoft.
This is why, in my opinion, unless there is a fundamental flaw and
something that you can show can create "damage" and "harm" it would be
very hard to altered the mindset that has prevailed.
You can see all this in motion with DKIM. Fatally moving towards a
flawed premature implementation promotion, but does that matter? No.
There is a mad rush to get this "RFCed" and there is too many powerful
entities involved with big strategic business interest to make it
happen. The only way this can change if an important "Necessary Folk"
spoke up. And even then, I doubt it. They are not going to wait for
the IETF to sanction it. It will happen anyway and inevitably, the
IETF will have no choice but to ok it. It is a rubber stamping process
at its best.
Anyway, it is probably ok to appeal to get it "on record." But if you
didn't succeed before, what has changed to make it succeed now?
I could only imagine taking an approach of proving "damages" like in a
court of law before it is taken seriously might present better odds of
getting people to seriously consider what the concerns are before they
making the inevitable predetermined decision anyway.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Mehnle" <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] SPF Council requests additional information
from SPF Community on if IAB appeal is appropriate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Graham Murray wrote:
This is probably a silly question, but why does the experiment have
to
start when the RFC is published? Why can the RFC not document an
already
running "experiment"? Publishing the RFC will have little or no
impact
on the already existing SPF implementations nor on the domains which
are
already publishing SPF records and/or checking SPF on incoming mail.
So
why can the "results" of the already running "experiment" be counted
as
well as the observations following RFC publication?
That you'll have to ask the IESG people. SPFv1 has been in use since
late
2003, so the 2 years of experience required could be considered to
having
been gathered as of late 2005. Yet they want to publish SPFv1 as an
Experimental RFC first and then have us collect the experience. Also,
despite explicit requests from our side, they have not provided us
with a
usefully concrete description of what kind of experience data they
would
like to see.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD53QCwL7PKlBZWjsRAo8lAKD1JhxwvQspLCvCuzLY/DoqxOyc3gCcCQ4N
Sp3mn7rC6JwoeTcLX/UxWxY=
=sqh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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
-------
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