Julian Mehnle wrote:
Three nits:
The conflict arose only after the IESG asked for individual
draft submissions from the SPF and Sender ID authors and
draft-lyon-senderid-core-00[5] was submitted (which for the
first time included the re-interpretation of "v=spf1" records
for the PRA identity), and accepting such a submission
despite the prior MARID WG consensus[6] that "v=spf1" should
not be used for checking of PRA or other unexpected
identities clearly violates the ultimate goal of producing
reliable standards.
I've trouble to parse this, please break it up in two or three
sentences.
One period could be s/and draft-senderid/. Draft-senderid/ (?)
Second nit:
Do you really need [5], the -00 version of senderid-core ?
You already have [3] for the actual -01 version (as it is).
I'd like to see a pointer to Ned's article, because it
discusses the issue of "conflicting IETF experiments":
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.general/15845>
Third nit, you didn't adopt Terry's proposed text quoted in:
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.discuss/20355>
If the third point is covered by the old appeal forget it,
short and sweet is important.
Bye, Frank
-------
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