dotzero at gmail
May 5, 2011, 5:44 AM
Post #8 of 8
(984 views)
Permalink
|
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.
>
> Barry
> (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/]
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
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
|
