Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

[Julian Mehnle <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dick St.Peters wrote:
> Julian Mehnle writes:
> > As my appeal[1] pointed out, at the time draft-lyon-senderid-core-00
> > was submitted for experimental status, there was no "running code"
> > that actually interpreted "v=spf1" as "spf2.0/mfrom,pra".
>
> Perhaps you shouldn't have said that.  Sendmail's sid-milter has used
> v=spf1 records for PRA checks since its initial release in August
> 2004.  I don't know the date for draft-lyon-senderid-core-00, but I
> believe it was well after August.

draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was submitted in October 2004.  However, I 
again quote from my appeal[1]:

| So when Mark Lentczner changed[2] the version identifier to "spf2.0" in
| draft-ietf-marid-protocol-01 in the aftermath[3,4] of IETF-60, there was
| clearly a consensus to avoid the use of "v=spf1" records for checking of
| PRA or other unexpected identities.

So if in August 2004 the Sendmail people chose to make sid-milter use 
"v=spf1" records, they clearly did it against IETF consensus.  I don't 
think this practice should be sanctioned ex post despite them having 
ignored that consensus.

References:
 1. http://www.xyzzy.claranet.de/home/test/senderid-appeal.htm
 2. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03282.html
 3. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03164.html
 4. http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03081.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDmaFBwL7PKlBZWjsRAh3CAJ45xjeJVpa83TE5cXwEaevCPBgbLACgn+If
PfEMgfRvhPQVTqyb+/eZ9tc=
=MaiF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf