> 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 think the best path for now is (1) -- assume that SPF is as it is, and don't predict the future. It's likely that this document will go out before anything changes with SPF, and any SPF working group can pick this up later and incorporate it, and flag itself as "updates [this]". Barry _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
