spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: SPF-council IRC logs for 2006-02-04

2006-02-06 22:17:12
Some bits found in the log:

23:15 <Julian> One thing is certain, I would like not to be
               the next secretary. ;-)

Won't help with those missing minutes, the new Council members
can't decode the old logs... ;->

23:24 <MarkK> motion carries!
23:25 <Julian> MarkK: Should I take over now?
23:25 <MarkK> yes, I hand the chair to julian

The SPF Council got its fourth Chair, Julian, good luck
and have fun...

23:35 <Julian> So ordered. William, I assume you accept?
23:35 <willix_> yes

...and a new Secretary, my condolences to William ;-)

00:00 <willix_> I know for sure some IETF senior members
                discussed it. I don't know if it included
                entire IAB/IESG or no

Of course they did, Ned even supported it on the general list.
Keith guessed that the approval of conflicting "experiments"
was a mistake, but that possibility was already eliminated by
the old appeals.  Harald asked what DEA ever did (an unrelated
article, pesci, newtrk, or genart, I forgot where).

And of course the entire IESG discussed it, Brian can't toss a
coin when he posts IESG decisions.  Same idea as with the SPF
Council and its Chair... ;-)

00:04 <Julian> I'm not so sure however that the IAB considers a
               conflict in _Experimental_ RFCs a serious
               problem.  We're not standards track, after all.

True, but (1) we wanted PS, (2) we wanted an "IETF last call",
and (3) SPF and PRA are still "IETF experiments".  Whatever
that is, see the old debate about this on the general list.

00:13 <SDGathman> We argued about the SPF reuse problem. His
                  defence was that perhaps it was a technical
                  mistake, and not deliberate sabotage.

Well, then he'll have no problem with removing four letters
in senderid-core to fix this minor technical mistake... ;-)

00:23 <Julian> I don't think any new points are going to come up.

Thanks to the RfC-editor that turned out to be wrong.

00:29 <Julian> If the council votes to escalate my appeal, I'll
               have to edit the appeal so it can be presented
               to the IAB.  This would require about a day, I
               think.

ACK, it could be shorter.  IIRC William proposed to add some of
his points.  Maybe use new pointers like Ned's article.  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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [spf-discuss] Re: SPF-council IRC logs for 2006-02-04, Frank Ellermann <=