On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:44:36 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
<vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:
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.
Not at all (I'm not an expert either, but this is my guess). If you look
at the Sender ID RFCs (particulary, IIRC, the one that defines PRA), there
is an additional note from the IESG about Sender ID. These have not been
resolved.
There has been a proposal to move both the SPF and Sender ID RFCs to
historic status since they are 'superceded' by DKIM. I objected to this
for SPF. No one objected about Sender ID.
I think Sender ID should be transitioned to historic and the conflict
resolved that way. We cannot afford to require all SPF records to be
republished as we move forward.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
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