On Thursday, August 18, 2011 05:34:47 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I think there's still an open question about whether Section 5.1 belongs > here or in the fledgling SPFbis effort. I think we have a few choices > there: > > 1) Do it this way, since the future and path of SPFbis is uncertain. > > 2) Do it as its own memo and see if APPSAWG will pick it up right away. It > would only contain the "exp" and "redirect" entries just for the sake of > creating the registry, and would be marked as "updates 4408". Then, this > memo simply updates that registry, and SPFbis can update it as well if > needed. This might be the cleanest solution. (Barry, thoughts?) > > 3) Replace Section 5 with text that basically says we know SPF doesn't > allow unknown modifiers, but proceed anyway because people that want this > will be able to make the distinction somehow. That might warrant demoting > this to Experimental and upgrading it later. Then SPFbis or a separate > action can create the registry and make it all formal when its future is > more clear. > > I'm quite in favour of 1 and/or 2.
My preference would be to leave it here until 4408bis has some traction, but I'm OK with either 1 or 2. 4408 does allow unknown modifiers (unknown mechanisms aren't allowed), the registry just ensures the namespace is managed to avoid collisions. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
