Scott Kitterman wrote:
It looks like we'll need a mechanism to establish an official SPF project
position on this. I think we need to elect a new SPF Council.
Hm.. I only have vague ideas about ietf practices. May I ask what are
the purposes of an official position and a council election?
The forwarded message reminds us that it is more than time that we
write another SPF standard. By "we" I vaguely mean this list. Of
course someone should take the burden to actually operate the required
IETF procedures.
Frank and Wayne have submitted relevant RFC errata. Are Wayne and
Meng, the authors of the current RFC, still on this list? Did they say
they are not going to [co-]author a new release? If yes, is that the
origin of the RFC5378-related problem?
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Reclassifying Sender ID and SPF as Historic
Date: Sunday 11 January 2009 12:25
From: SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[...]
Proponents of Sender ID and SPF are encouraged to update their
specifications to resolve any conflict that was observed. Obviously,
it's in their best interests to reach a consensus on what changes are
appropriate instead of trying to publish each document individually
as any individual effort would likely face opposition from the IETF
community.
Anyone has any notice about activities to rewrite RFC4406?
IMHO, "spf-discuss" is the proper place for discussions on any new SPF
RFC. If we get no news from SenderID authors, shouldn't we opt to
solve conflicts by using, say, "v=spf3", and aim for the standard track?
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com