Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
IMO, no attempt should be made to deploy a v3 until v1 has an official
RFC.
I'm no expert on standardization practices, but I read on rfc 2026
that "A Proposed Standard specification [...] has resolved known
design choices", and the IESG Note indeed expresses concern about SPF
and SenderID not being conciliable, as though the two approaches
typify the corresponding design choices. My understanding is that we
shall resolve that conflict before we get on the standards track. And
we need "spf3" for that.
At any rate, we'll need an AD to sponsor the process, and she or he
will hopefully also provide advice on what changes would preclude
which maturity level.
But now is the time to start listing things we wish we could
fix in v1 for the eventual v3.
+1
One thing we can do for an official v1 RFC, is clarify things
like SPF-V vs SPF-G.
We cannot prescribe a policy, but describing valid alternatives should
be just fine.
-------------------------------------------
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