spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] IAB appeal draft

2006-02-08 15:25:57
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frank Ellermann 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.

I split the sentence like this: "...identity).  Accepting...".

One day I'll have to learn to write shorter and less complex sentences.  
It's a real problem of mine.

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). 

You're right, that footnote wasn't really necessary.  It was footnoted in 
the IESG appeal and for some reason I had thoughtlessly adopted the 
footnote.

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>

You pointed to that article earlier, and I thought about how I could 
include it, but all the article does is making points (as opposed to 
presenting new information or being authoritative of some sorts), which I 
should be doing myself directly in the IAB appeal instead of referring to 
them.  So I just made the point myself in the final version.

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.

I don't think it is covered by the IESG appeal (perhaps it should have 
been), but I think it would have been too "detailesque" now for the IAB 
appeal, which is trying to point out the larger issues.  
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD6m+cwL7PKlBZWjsRAkNfAKCa+W9Wc4kyCxwGkLIvQZMbdZq6kgCg9nK/
CQkg3/25MrBWlBX6bNu35Kk=
=KBn6
-----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