dotzero at gmail
May 5, 2011, 5:44 AM
Post #8 of 8
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba [at] computer> wrote:
>> Everyones time would be much better served by a discussion on whether
>> (I am supportive) to move SPF to standards track (remember, it is
>> still experimental) within IETF. This could either be through working
>> group or as an independent submission through openspf.
> To be clear: it can't be done as an INDEPENDENT submission;
> standards-track documents can ONLY go through the IETF Stream, not the
> Independent Stream (nor the IAB Stream, nor the IRTF Stream...).
> It could be done as an INDIVIDUAL submission, which would still
> require community-wide last call (4 weeks) and IESG approval. It
> would also require a sponsoring Area Director, and, given the current
> composition of the IESG, that would likely have to be Pete Resnick.
> So, anyone thinking of doing this should start by talking with Pete.
> (DKIM working group chair and IETF liaison to MAAWG)
Thanks for the correction Barry. My point being that there are two
alternative paths to moving SPF forward and that refighting the
SPF/SIDF wars will likely lead to suboptimal outcomes.
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ [http://www.listbox.com/member/]
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/1311532-17d8a1ba
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-f2ea6ed9
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=1311532&id_secret=1311532-bdbb122a&post_id=20110505084436:A795DBFA-7715-11E0-A7B0-00BEF559ED1D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com