-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To any who reply to this thread: please, please trim the list of recipients to remove any of the following addresses, unless you explicitly want to address them: * iab@xxxxxxx * iesg@xxxxxxxx * spf-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Keith Moore wrote: > when editing documents that purport to describe existing practices and > protocols, there is often a conflict between documenting existing > practice and describing desirable practice (or undesirable practice). > this conflict results in confusion of goals, and one possible result is > that the document describes neither existing practice nor desirable > practice. > > in resolving the conflict it is sometimes useful to separate the two > efforts: > > - describe existing practice, warts and all > - describe what is believed to be good or bad about the existing > practice I agree. But please note that there was no "existing practice" of re-using "v=spf1" records for the checking of the PRA identity or any other non- envelope identities when Microsoft first submitted the Sender ID drafts to the IESG after the demise of the MARID WG. See my IESG appeal (included in the IAB appeal[1]) for details on the history of Sender ID's re-use of "v=spf1". Please do not spread urban legends. Julian. References: 1. http://www.iab.org/appeals/2006-02-08-mehnle-appeal.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEBzeswL7PKlBZWjsRAqBmAJ9AdDrgJmu57uoKLxESZDVnLK1yVwCgrQM0 Rm1xWFooLP/oOhQ45xXBTMY= =1M5G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf