<Julian> Guys, I think a formal resolution wrt. the "NOT RECOMMENDED"
issue might be appropriate. We already have some similar
material resolutions wrt the SPF spec, so another one would be
nothing unusual.
<Julian> http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution
* Julian tries to phrase a motion.
<grumpy> Julian: I don't think we need another resolution.
<grumpy> the comments made by the IESG were made before our previous
resolution.
<MarkK> grumpy: I would not mind such a resolution
<Julian> grumpy: Not even as a clear position statement?
<csm-laptop> I would not mind either
<grumpy> it just hadn't been discussed on spf-discuss
<Julian> grumpy: Well, the last press release doesn't exactly focus on
_this_ issue.
<csm-laptop> grumpy: yes it has
<grumpy> Ok, we can have a motion to re-affirm the previousmotion.
<Julian> ...
<MarkK> grumpy: yes, it has (with soaring emotions even)
<csm-laptop> We affirm the "NOT RECOMMENDED" verbage?
<MarkK> yes
* Julian is just wording a motion.
<csm-laptop> sounds good to me
<csm-laptop> somebody want to put it into words?
<grumpy> the two messages that were linked to in the agenda are about
stuff that happened *before* our last motion, and were posted to
SPF-discuss *after* our last motion
<MarkK> csm: julian is working on it :)
<MarkK> grumpy: I did not check the exact date; but people, in the
community, obviously have strong feelings about it
<grumpy> oh, I agree.
<grumpy> It is just that I think we addressed it with our motion before
they noticed that we had addressed it.
<grumpy> and, as per my vote on the motion, I completely agree with what
the SPF folks said on spf-discuss.
<Julian> Motion: The SPF specification shall explicitly and clearly
recommend against checking SPFv1 (v=spf1) records against
non-RFC2821 identities (HELO/EHLO and MAIL FROM).
<grumpy> what did the previous motion say?
<Julian> (This way it is clear and any discussion about it can be
considered concluded.)
<Julian> grumpy: What previous motion?
<Julian> There is #11 <http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/11> "SPF
checking of the HELO identity shall be explicitly allowed".
* grumpy searches
<MarkK> julian: can we add "NOT RECOMMENDED" as keyword to the motion?
<Julian> MarkK: I think "shall explicitly recommend against" is
equivalent and sufficient. Don't you agree?
<grumpy> Ok, it was talked about in the Feb 09 meeting
<MarkK> I suppose so. :)
<Julian> Motion: The SPF specification shall explicitly and clearly
recommend against checking SPFv1 (v=spf1) records against
non-RFC2821 identities (HELO/EHLO and MAIL FROM). The RFC 2119
compliant wording "NOT RECOMMENDED" shall be used.
<csm-laptop> second?
<MarkK> 2302u: seconded
<csm-laptop> votes?
<Julian> 2302u: yes
<MarkK> 2302u: yes
<grumpy> 2302u: yes
<csm-laptop> so ordered
<grumpy> Ok, I see the stuff in the minutes of the 2005/02/09 meeting,
but I don't see a resolution
<Julian> Thanks for concluding the spf-discuss discussion about this
issue.
<Julian> Not that I didn't like the discussion. But every discussion
should have a conclusion.