Hello!
[ First time post to the list after one year reading ]
Am Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2006 21:11 schrieb Julian Mehnle:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
here's a carefully considered draft for the IAB appeal. Sorry for the
delay! Please review it soon!
One last draft before I submit it to the IAB. Please send any criticism
within the next 90min.
Good work, I really like the draft, found only two or three problems.
( Please note, i am *not* a native English speaker, therefore I can not
provide good alternative wording. )
Anyway in the following sentence, every time I tried, I got a "parse error"
at position "||". May be, it is just because of my limited skills in
English.
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 did not get the connecting of "clearly violates ...." with the rest of
that sentence.
An other point I found (again, I may have missed something because of
insufficient language understanding):
The second paragraph under Point "2." :
This reasoning disregards the substantial history the "v=spf1" record
definition has had outside the IETF since late 2003[8]. The SPF
project, which I am representing in this case, believes that the
decision to ignore the prior experience ...
might be a little offending. Perhaps the second sentence in that paragraph
should be reversed, that is, first say SPF Community has accepted the
decision, then say SPF Community consider it wrong.
The last sentence in paragraph three under point "2.":
Requiring participants in the SPFv1 experiment to "opt out"
from also participating in the Sender ID experiment by publishing an
empty "spf2.0" record cannot be considered an acceptable solution
either, both based on principle and given the large number of existing
"v=spf1" records that were published before Sender ID was conceived[9].
raises the question "why is that bad?". If it can be done in a short
sentence, it may be usefull to add why this re-use of "v=spf1" will harm
participant in one or the other experiment.
Best Regards
Bjoern Kahl
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Björn Kahl +++ Bahnhofstrasse 2c +++ 95444 Bayreuth |
| Tel.: (ISDN) 0921 78778470 +++ E-Mail: bjoern(_at_)bjoern-kahl(_dot_)de
|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Weitergabe und/oder gewerbliche Nutzung meiner Adresse/TeleNr untersagt.
-------
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
pgp5UWbPoUKm1.pgp
Description: PGP signature