On 14/Dec/11 18:12, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: >>On 08/Dec/11 19:21, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> >>> We have a few options here: >>> >>> a) Downgrade spf-reporting to Experimental. >>> >>> b) Pursue spf-reporting publication on the Standards Track, >>> acknowledging the downref. >>> >>> c) Pursue spf-reporting publication on the Standards Track, >>> referencing SPFbis instead of RFC4408. This will cause >>> spf-reporting to be held by the RFC Editor until SPFbis publishes, >>> but it's still a path forward. >> >>I'd vote for option (c). SPFbis is not expected to bring fundamental >>changes to the protocol. However, together with spf-reporting it can >>compose enough of an innovation to imply some sort of revision by most >>alive implementations. >> >>Early adopters of authfailure-report can already see that SPF is one >>of the methods provided for, and code or plan accordingly. > > My plan is to work towards option (b) unless there's some better > consensus developed around one of the other choices. > > Option (a) [...] > > Similarly, I think waiting for 4408bis to publish would be > pointless waiting. I'm aware of likely implementors and waiting > won't help them either.
In that case, it's fine to go for option (b). I'm going to ask this question on the other list, anyway. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
