[GTER] Fw: The IETF has accepted the SPF specification for RFC status!

[Antonio Carlos Pina]

Para seu conhecimento.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "wayne" <wayne at schlitt.net>
To: <spf-announce at v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: The IETF has accepted the SPF specification for RFC status!


>
>                   Sender Policy Framework (SPF) News
>                   ----------------------------------
>                    by Wayne Schlitt, June 24, 2005
>
>
> Greetings!
>
> The IETF has accepted the SPF specification for RFC status!
>
>
> A little over a month ago, we restarted this spf-announce mailing list
> with a few updates of what had happened in the last year.   Since
> then, we have been hard at work on several things, and the first to
> bear fruit is the SPF specification.
>
>
> This SPF specification aims to clearly define the semantics of SPF,
> based on the older SPF specifications from late 2003 and early 2004,
> taking into account the state of SPF implementations and making
> adjustments that have been requested by the IETF.  This latest SPF
> specification has undergone considerable review, not only by the SPF
> community, but also by various IETF groups.
>
> On June 6th, we submitted the completed draft for consideration by the
> IETF, and today, the IETF has voted to accept the SPF specification as an
> "Experimental" RFC[1].  The SPF specification still needs to go through
the
> RFC Editor, and this can take weeks or even months to complete.
> (There are currently around 300 draft RFCs in the editor queue.)
>
>
> We had asked for consideration as a "Standards Track" RFC rather than
> "Experimental", but the IETF has informed us that they would only
> consider "Experimental" status[2].  This was not a big surprise, but we
> were surprised at some of the other actions that they took.
>
> The IETF has decided that the SPF specification can not be made into
> an RFC until the Sender ID specification is also ready.  This appears
> to be in order to be 'fair' to Microsoft[3].  Moreover, the IETF has
> declared that the last 1.5 years of SPF deployment will not count
> toward the two year requirement for experimental testing that they
> have set.  Again, this is to be 'fair' to Microsoft since their
> testing has barely begun.
>
>
> The Sender ID specifications call for the reuse of SPF version 1
> records in incompatible ways in conflict with the SPF specification.[4]
> We have made our objections clear to the IETF, but so far, the IETF
> appears to be ready to bless this abuse of SPF records.[5]  We will
> continue to work to try and make SPF as reliable as possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12662&rfc_flag=0
>
> [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/312
>
> [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/314
>
> [4]
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.html#anchor6
>
> [5] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/333
>
> ----------
> To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
receive messages,
> please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-announce@v2.listbox.com
>