-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I wrote:
I just talked to Meng, and he pointed out to me that the RFC Editor
might not strictly require the explicit approval of all document
authors, so we're now definitely going to proceed without Wayne.
I'll complete the list of last-minute changes and send it to Meng on
Sunday. If anyone wants anything on that list, raise your voice ASAP!
THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE!
I wrote on spf-council:
Council members,
William Leibzon wrote:
Julian,
Please organize council meeting preferably for next week to discuss
editorial changes to the SPF draft.
*sigh*
After Wayne's disappearance, I had de facto taken on the role of editor
of the spec, not least because no one else stepped forward. Thus I was
going to judge on the last minute changes and submit the final list to
Meng later today. Now we're starting to discuss lots of changes again.
I'll try to set up a meeting ASAP, but it will require prompt
cooperation by all of you. [...]
The council held a 4-hours long meeting on Monday 23:00 UTC and decided on
all but two (#34 and #35) of the changes listed on:
http://new.openspf.org/draft-schlitt-spf-classic_AUTH48_changes
The changes #34 and #35 have been discussed at length on this mailing list
with regard to the trailing-dot issue, however the council determined that
their _other_ aspects needed additional discussion.
Regarding #34, I summarized the problems of the original wording of the
spec and of each of the change variants as follows:
* The problem with the _original_ grammar (modulo the trailing-dot issue)
is that it doesn't allow TLDs that start with a digit, including "1xy"
and "1-1", which are technically valid according the the LDH rule in
RFC 3696.
* The problem with variant 1 is that it doesn't explicitly prohibit TLDs
that are made up of only digits, but only points to the LDH rule, which
only implicitly prohibits those.
* The problem with variant 2 is that it is more complicated but still
doesn't allow "1-1" for TLDs, which is technically valid according to
the LDH rule (not composed of digits only).
* The problem with variant 3 is that it is very complicated. To my
knowledge, no other RFCs are that anal-retentive about valid TLD
syntax.
Please take that as my personal assessment, not as definitive statements.
The council requests additional opinions on which variants of changes #34
and #35 are preferable and _why_, or whether those changes are desirable
in the first place (again, modulo the trailing-dot issue, which has
already been discussed at sufficient length here).
The council will meet again in 16 hours, at Tuesday 20:00 UTC, and decide
on the remaining two changes, based on the arguments exchanged on this
mailing list until then.
After that, the list of changes will finally be passed to Meng for final
review and submission to the RFC Editor.
Thanks,
Julian,
for the council.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEKLUVwL7PKlBZWjsRApLwAKDFoKw5Nh+d5gDvnOXuMUZNuc4p0gCeMkJ0
m1WBKIHpYE0xVjGzmkXSii4=
=N5hm
-----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