-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
in RFC 4408 I read
The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the
two approaches during the two years following publication, in order
that a community consensus can be reached in the future.
Since the publication is apparently April 2006, the above implies there
is a deadline for April 2008. Is that correct? Should we provide a new
RFC by that date?
The most obvious amendment is, of course, that the protocol comes out
of its experimental status :-/
Yes, the IETF asked us to collect real-world experience after the
publication of RFC 4408. I think we should make another attempt at
getting SPFv1 onto the standards track.
However, I don't quite see yet how the conflict with Sender ID's
v=spf1/PRA abuse could be resolved. We can claim that Sender ID and
especially spf2.0 records haven't gained significant deployment in the
past two years, but Microsoft could just claim the opposite and showcase
a host of institutions that have allegedly implemented Sender ID (even if
many of them probably have implemented just SPF and no PRA checking).
As for amendments to RFC 4408, I'm extremely sceptical of changing any
semantics of the spec. Maybe we can clean the document up and apply the
handful of errata[1] that we have collected. Adding receiver-side policy
like you suggest in your other postings isn't something that I would do.
References:
1. http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHf2lPwL7PKlBZWjsRAk/yAKDYBsJ/6MHxWFwb0Tg/x0XdBSvPcQCeJiQ8
mdR8pNE4RxoWzbv84/tD59w=
=hwx9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=82136133-64e4a9
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com