Mailing List Archive: SPF: Discuss

RFC lawyering (was: Top problems with SPF acceptance)

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

nobody at xyzzy

Mar 4, 2008, 8:25 PM

Post #1 of 3 (220 views)
Permalink

RFC lawyering (was: Top problems with SPF acceptance)

Michael Deutschmann wrote:

> SWK-SPF is unlikely to "hit IETF servers in the form of an
> Internet Draft", since I'm allergic to RFC lawyering and
> ignorant of the procedures involved.

For me it was exactly the opposite with SPF, SRS, SES, etc.:

I'm allergic to moving targets and obscure PDFs. And after
the MARID disaster some folks here (including me) got over
their procedural ignorance as fast as possible, we'd now all
chew on PRA otherwise, with SPF as a historical anecdote in
an appendix of the SenderID RFCs.

You can use the xml2rfc format to produce "private" drafts,
without submitting them as Internet Draft, that's what I did
for draft-spf-options-04 up to -10 for some years. Changing
two characters to get "real" Internet Drafts later, there is
no "RFC lawyering" involved as long as you stick to drafts.

One funny example is the guy posting Internet Drafts based
on his theory that bits can count to three ("", "0", "1"):
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/terrell>

He'd get into a minimal amount of "RFC lawyering" if he tries
to find an area director and/or shepherd willing to "sponsor"
one of his drafts as RFC, boiling down to a "no" - if he then
appeals that decision he'd get a bit more "lawyering" still
resulting in "no", no harm done, redefining bits to be "tits"
is just a bad idea.

If folks like your drafts, and ideally somebody is willing to
do the "shepherd" job, it is a *relatively* simple procedure,
don't worry about it. The IETF procedures are designed to be
as open as possible based on rough consensus and running code.

The really hard part is not the procedure, it is to find any
readers / reviewers / implementors at all - "I like my own
draft" is not good enough if you want an RFC number for it.

See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis> or
the older RFC 4677 for a nice intro.

Frank

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=95897010-3d7186
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

michael at talamasca

Mar 4, 2008, 9:47 PM

Post #2 of 3 (210 views)
Permalink

Re: RFC lawyering (was: Top problems with SPF acceptance) [In reply to]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> You can use the xml2rfc format to produce "private" drafts,
> without submitting them as Internet Draft, that's what I did
> for draft-spf-options-04 up to -10 for some years. Changing
> two characters to get "real" Internet Drafts later, there is
> no "RFC lawyering" involved as long as you stick to drafts.

The v0.0 draft of SWK-SPF is already in xml2rfc format.

ftp://ftp.ocis.net/users/ldeutsch/beta/swkspf-0.0.xml

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael[at]talamasca.ocis.net>

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=95897010-3d7186
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

nobody at xyzzy

Mar 5, 2008, 11:01 AM

Post #3 of 3 (208 views)
Permalink

Re: RFC lawyering [In reply to]

Michael Deutschmann wrote:

> The v0.0 draft of SWK-SPF is already in xml2rfc format.

Great, from that point to an Internet Draft is easy, you
can submit it at
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idst/upload.cgi>

"We" (for some value of "TINW") wold also want it in the
collection of drafts related to SPF on OpenSPF.org below
<http://www.openspf.org/source/project/specs/drafts/>

After my OS/2 box died I have not yet reinstalled SVN,
and forgot the password, that is why "spf-options-02" is
not in the OpenSPF.org repository.

Also missing is Phil's historical "accreditation" draft,
he posted it once on an ASRG list, but it never made it
behind the then still manual IETF submission procedure
due to some non-ASCII gibberish in his draft:
<http://purl.net/xyzzy/home/test/draft-hallambaker-accreditation-00.TXT>

My "copy" is a kind of unauthorized fix, therefore I have
never uploaded it to OpenSPF.org. If you want your draft
on OpenSPF.org you can ask say Julian for an SVN password,
or anybody with SVN and password can do it. Of course
that is not "required" or part of any "RFC lawyering", it
is only a collection of drafts on the OpenSPF.org server.

Internet Draft would be better for "marketing" purposes,
the I-D repository is more popular than the OpenSPF.org
repository. OTOH the silence is more resounding for I-Ds,
e.g., the only feedback I ever got for the "spf-options"
was here on this list. But you'd get all IETF tools for
Internet Drafts like decent diffs for free, without any
"RFC lawyering" (until you seriously want an RFC number).

> ftp://ftp.ocis.net/users/ldeutsch/beta/swkspf-0.0.xml

ITYM ftp://ftp.ocis.net/pub/users/ldeutsch/beta/swkspf-0.0.txt
and ftp://ftp.ocis.net/pub/users/ldeutsch/beta/swkspf-0.0.xml

Frank

-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=95897010-3d7186
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com