#17: The official SPFv1 specification
An official SPFv1 specification shall be created, prepared by a series of drafts based on spf-draft-200406 (the last official draft from before the council's formation) and input from the project community, and bound by any council resolutions. This specification shall be submitted to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) for ratification as an internet standard. No other SPFv1 specification shall be considered official, or submitted to any standards body in the name of the SPF project.
Wayne Schlitt is mandated to act as the editor for the official SPFv1 specification and any new preceding drafts.
(Proposed on 2004-12-22 by Wayne Schlitt, passed unanimously. First amendment proposed on 2005-02-09 by Chuck Mead, passed by majority.)
<grumpy> I would like to have an offical statment from the ocuncil to
authorize me to be the author of the SPF I-D
<grumpy> and to coordinate the efforts on the spf-discuss list
<Julian> grumpy: Is that a motion already?
<csm-laptop> motion: the council asks Wayne to author the SPF-ID
<grumpy> I don't think that has been a motion yet
<MarkK> turn it into a motion, please :)
<csm-laptop> motion: the council asks Wayne to author the SPF-ID
* grumpy seconds 1542u
<MarkK> 1642u: yes
<grumpy> 1542u yes
<Julian> 1542u: yes
<MarkK> err: 1542u: yes
<csm-laptop> so ordered
Vote log for 2005-02-09 amendment | >> |
<freeside> i suggest the directorate go ahead and examine whatever they want
to examine. MS would prefer that the directorate examine the
Lentczner draft.
<freeside> i suggest Wayne do another rev anyway and keep submitting that to
the directorate.
<freeside> and i suggest we leave the decision up to the IETF.
<Julian> Does the IETF care which draft outside people want them to review?
<freeside> yes, the IETF does care.
<Julian> I mean, does it make sense to lobby the IETF with regard to such
things?
<csm> then I suggest we press the IETF to take Waynes draft
<Julian> csm: Agreed.
<MarkK> csm: agreed
<grumpy> I have a lot of problems with the lentczner draft. It changes
things in the way spf-classic works.
<grumpy> csm: agreed.
<freeside> i will tell the directorate that if they want to consider sender
id, they should use the lentczner draft as part of that kit. i
will also tell the directorate they should also consider the
schlitt draft, or the next rev of it, at any rate.
<freeside> and the final decision can be with them.
<freeside> how does that sound?
<grumpy> I don't like it.
<freeside> because they can't really consider sender id using the schlitt
draft.
<grumpy> draft-lentczner and draft-schlitt conflict on a lot of things.
<MarkK> wayne, we are past that already: we already agreed and voted on to
do your draft; I feel no need for us, whatsoever, to retalk about
rewriting your draft to accommodate the lentczner draft
<MarkK> I say we push to the wayne draft with the IETF
<Julian> No, the MarkL draft talks about v=spf1 records. It cannot seriously
be considered if this legitimizes the use of v=spf1 records for RFC
2822 identities any more than draft-schlitt-spf-classic does.
<csm> motion: promote waynes draft (series?) with the IETF
<Julian> MarkK: Agreed. We voted to make Wayne the editor for a reason.
<Julian> 2341u: seconded
<csm> votes?
<Julian> 2341u: yes
<MarkK> 2341u: yes
<grumpy> 2341u: yes
<csm> 2341u: yes
<Julian> Hey, csm didn't abstain.
<grumpy> heh
<csm> I don't have to abstain
<Julian> csm: I know. It is still noteworthy. :)
<csm> freeside?
<freeside> 2341u: abstain
<csm> motion is carried
<freeside> woot