This is the recent traffic on the #SPF-council IRC channel on irc.pobox.com. Anyone may join the channel, but only council members can talk.

If you do not have access to IRC, you may view the recent traffic at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html.

This log can be can be viewed at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/2005/04/28_irc_log.html.

IRC nicknames:
csmChuck Mead
freesideMeng Weng Wong
grumpyWayne Schlitt
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (asarian-host.net)

--- Mon Apr 4 01:48:34 UTC 2005 ---
01:48<grumpy>test!
--- Tue Apr 5 12:49:50 UTC 2005 ---
12:49<Julian>csm-laptop: Would you announce a meeting for tomorrow evening?
12:50<Julian>Better safe than sorry.
12:52<csm-laptop>lunch time today I will do so
12:52<Julian>Thanks.
--- Wed Apr 6 21:04:06 UTC 2005 ---
21:04<Julian>So?
21:05<Julian>Do we meet today?
21:09<Julian>Anybody alive?
21:14<Julian>What the hell is going on with the council?
21:16<csm-laptop>nobody but you responded to my email
21:23<Julian>Oh, it's just 21:23 anyway. Daylight saving time...
21:24*csm-laptop is on his way home
22:02<Julian>It's 22:02 UTC.
22:03<csm>and there's no quorum I betcha
22:06<Julian>Not yet.
22:06<grumpy>oops
22:07<grumpy>sorry I'm late
22:07<grumpy>ok, three of us now?
22:07<Julian>Yeah, better than none, but still not enough.
22:08*Julian is just answering John Glube's inquiry <http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200504/0027.html>.
22:08<grumpy>the new DNS server for the trusted-forwarder whitelist is working well, but I still have a few things to do like getting a backup system working.
22:09<Julian>grumpy: I think the -01 draft may be more important right now.
22:09<grumpy>maybe.
22:09<grumpy>queries get done every second
22:10<grumpy>last week, I broke 2Million queries/day for the first time. This week, I've broken 2.5M....
22:12<grumpy>I've only have one secondary that isn't updating from the new IP addresses, and I finally was able to get my dead regsitrar to budge enough to update the root NS with the new IP addresses.
22:12<Julian>That's good news.
22:12<grumpy>yeah.
22:12<Julian>(2.5M queries/day.)
22:12<Julian>My reply to John Glube just went out.
22:13<grumpy>I should easily break 2.5M again today, my stats script estimates 2.73M, but it generally overestimates at this time of the day.
22:19<Julian>This is my reply: http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200504/0071.html
22:22<Julian>freeside: ping
22:22<Julian>grumpy, csm: What do you think re: my reply to John Glube?
22:23<Julian>Does it reflect the council's view?
22:26*grumpy does a quick scan
22:26<Julian>Oh, come on, it's really not _that_ long. :-)
22:26<grumpy>yeah, that matches my understanding and is reflected in the -01pre2 draft that I've put out
22:26<Julian>Put out? Have I missed it??
22:26<grumpy>no, but I was off attending the kitchen
22:27<grumpy>uh, no, I think you have seen it.
22:27<grumpy>you certainly have seen the -01pre1
22:28<grumpy>(I was in the kitchen making working on dinner... I'm back now.)
22:28<Julian>I have seen -01pre1 and -01pre2, but none of those have been made public so far, and I did not want to comment on -01pre2 before you gave final comments on my -01pre1 comments.
22:29<grumpy>ok
22:29<Julian>I suggest you give me final comments on my -01pre1 comments, and then we put out -01pre1a.
22:30<Julian>I.e. re-open negotiations on -01pre2.
22:31*Julian is dead tired.
22:32<Julian>On another note, I won't be able to do much for SPF before next Tuesday.
22:36<Julian>freeside: ping
23:10<Julian>Okay, I'm going to bed. Please try to get a new meeting date scheduled.
--- Fri Apr 8 16:48:05 UTC 2005 ---
16:48<Julian>csm-laptop: Serious question: Whose task is it to schedule meetings? Sometimes I wonder... (No offense!)
--- Fri Apr 22 13:29:44 UTC 2005 ---
13:29<Julian>csm-laptop: Didn't you plan to announce a meeting for next Wed? I think you'd play it safe and announce it early.
13:29<Julian>s/you'd/you'd better/
--- Wed Apr 27 20:57:26 UTC 2005 ---
20:57<Julian>csm-laptop: Are you going to issue an updated agenda for today's meeting?
20:57<Julian>T = -93min.
20:58<MarkK>T - 31 minutes, right?
20:58<grumpy>daylight savings time change...
20:58<csm-laptop>Julian: go ahead and update it... I am teaching and cannot
20:58<grumpy>92 min according to date -u
20:59<Julian>MarkK: Now = 20:59 UTC
21:00<MarkK>so, we're on in 93 minutes? good to know the daylight saving change affected this
21:00<Julian>csm-laptop: Ok, will do.
21:00<csm-laptop>you will see me dissappear... I will go home... and come back on line from there so do not panic when I vanish
21:01<Julian>MarkK: Yes. I think we'll have to find another time of the day for future meetings, 22:30 UTC is 00:30 local for me, and considering that our meetings usually last between 1.5h and 2.5h, this is too late for me if we meet this late _regularly_.
21:02<MarkK>Julian: yes, an hour earlier might be better for us
21:02<csm-laptop>we could go in half an hour if you guys all agree
21:02<grumpy>... with me
21:02<grumpy>;-)
21:02<Julian>Depends if freeside agrees.
21:02<MarkK>Julian: of course, we are not on as 'regularly', sadly :)
21:02<MarkK>I agree
21:03<MarkK>(with going online in 30 minutes, I mean)
21:03<Julian>Would be fine with me, too.
21:03<MarkK>is freeside present? (as in actively here)
21:04<Julian>freeside: ping
21:05<Julian>If freeside pongs before 21:30, let's prepone the meeting.
21:05<MarkK>good you are here too, grumpy; I had an agenda item for the spf-classic draft
21:08<Julian>Please submit any additional agenda items to spf-council within the next 15min, I'm going to prepare an updated agenda on behalf of the chair.
21:09<grumpy>MarkK: yeah, my daughter is sick, so I couldn't pick her up today.
21:12<MarkK>grumpy: sorry to hear she is ill
21:28<csm-laptop>okay... my class ran overtime... but i am leaving to go home now...
21:28<csm-laptop>I will jump back on line as soon as I get there... if freeside has shown up we can go then...
21:51<Julian>csm-laptop: freeside has not shown up yet.
21:51<csm-laptop>gee
21:51<csm-laptop>there's a surprise
21:57<grumpy>If you want some light reading for the next 30 minutes, you can check out: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic_libspf2/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre3.html
21:58<grumpy>I will almost certainly increment it to pre4 with any changes/suggestions/spelling-corrections/etc. that I find between now and the end of the council meeting.
21:58<grumpy>Then I'm going to send it to spf-discuss.
21:58<grumpy>Yes, I should have done this long ago. Sorry.
21:59<grumpy>*&#($$#
22:00*grumpy thought he had fixed the "_libspf2" url problem.
22:01<grumpy>ok, make that: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01pre3.html
22:03<Julian>grumpy: Can you tend to my outstanding 01pre1 suggestions later?
22:04<Julian>("404 Not Found", by the way...)
22:04<grumpy>try again.
22:04*grumpy curses timestamps that don't do what he wants
22:04<Julian>Works. Thanks.
22:05<grumpy>IIRC, your outstanding 01pre1 suggestions were mostly either applied in pre3 or things like wanting to change NXDOMAIN from "none" to "PermError".
22:05<Julian>Possible.
22:05<Julian>I can check my outstanding suggestions against 01pre3 later.
22:05<grumpy>it might be best to just send me a new list of fixes.
22:06<grumpy>Oh, the new draft is 50 pages, up two pages from pre2. One thing I'm going to look at now is what to cut back on.
22:06<Julian>I'm going to inspect a diff 01pre1--01pre3 later this week and compile a new list of change suggestions.
22:07<grumpy>ok
22:07<grumpy>uh, re: the agenda. What is the "DNS load" thing I'm supposed to talk on?
22:07*grumpy remembers seeing messages about it on spf-discuss, but isn't sure what he is supposed to say
22:08<Julian>grumpy: Cutting back might be good, but isn't strictly necessary. I have been thinking about creating a simpler (non-authoritative) SPF reference, but I doubt doing that makes much sense before the spec is absolutely finished.
22:08<Julian>grumpy: I think you sent Chuck a message about that, didn't you?
22:08<grumpy>did I?
22:09<grumpy>you mean about the DNS load?
22:09<grumpy>if so, I don't remember.
22:09<Julian>I think so, because that's how Chuck probably got the idea from...
22:10<Julian>I don't see any public message on spf-council about it...
22:11<grumpy>Chuck's agenda didn't list the DNS load issue, your update did.
22:12<grumpy>I'm quite willing to babble on about it at length until everyone falls asleep though... ;-)
22:16<Julian>I took it from one of Chuck's earlier agendas.
22:17<grumpy>oh...
22:17<grumpy>uh...
22:17*grumpy investigates some more
22:18<grumpy>Ok, I found the agenda where it is listed, but I still have no idea what it is about.
22:18<grumpy>Chuck?
22:20<Julian>grumpy: The item first appeared on the 2005-03-23 agenda <http://moongroup.com/pipermail/spf-council/2005-March/000198.html>. That meeting got preponed to 03-22 (Tuesday), and as a result you couldn't take part.
22:21<grumpy>yeah, that is the one I found too.
22:24<Julian>grumpy: Have you looked in your outbox?
22:25<Julian>s/outbox/sent folder/
22:25<grumpy>yes
22:26<grumpy>Unfortunately, I send a lot of email involving SPF and DNS, so I may have missed it.
22:29<grumpy>T - 30s....
22:30<MarkK>T
22:31<csm-laptop>so is everybody here?
22:31<Julian>yup
22:31<grumpy>Meng?
22:31<MarkK>yep
22:31<Julian>freeside?
22:32<grumpy>Well, I say we start, and if Meng shows up, we can deal with it then.
22:32<grumpy>it is late over in the EU
22:32<Julian>k
22:33<grumpy>chair?
22:33<grumpy>csm-laptop?
22:34<Julian_>WTF?
22:34<grumpy>Uh, netsplit?
22:34<csm-laptop>he-he
22:34<MarkK>I would have loved to hear from Meng on why the HSARPA was turned down :( I hope he shows up
22:34<csm-laptop>so we ready?
22:34<grumpy>yes
22:34<MarkK>yes
22:35<csm-laptop>the meeting will come to order
22:35*{0pm3-2} pokes {0pm3}.
22:35<csm-laptop>do we have minutes to approve?
22:36*grumpy curses Murphy....
22:36<grumpy>are you there Julian?
22:36<Julian_>yes
22:36<grumpy>do we have minutes to approve?
22:36<Julian>Sure, see today's agenda: http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Meeting/2005-03-22
22:37<Julian>BTW, I have thought about changing the minutes approval procedure. Perhaps it is better that I write the minutes and send them to you privately, then you approve them _before_ I publish them.
22:37<Julian>Motion: Please approve the 2005-03-22 meeting minutes.
22:37<csm-laptop>second?
22:37<grumpy>Uh, yeah, I've read those
22:38<grumpy>2237u second
22:38<csm-laptop>votes?
22:38<Julian>grumpy: You weren't present. You shouldn't second the motion. :-)
22:38<grumpy>2237u yea
22:38<MarkK>2237u: yes
22:38<Julian>2237u: yes
22:38<csm-laptop>Julian: he's read them... I see no reason why he shouldn't
22:38<grumpy>(I read the IRC logs... that should cover everything.)
22:38<Julian>grumpy: Ok.
22:38<csm-laptop>so ordered
22:38<Julian>Thank you.
22:39<csm-laptop>Chairman has no report
22:39<csm-laptop>Meng is not present
22:39<csm-laptop>spf-announce?
22:39<Julian>csm-laptop: I ask the chair to postpone not only the chairman's and ED's reports, but also items 4 and 5.
22:39<MarkK>(we can always hear from the executive officer should he arrive later)
22:40<Julian>(Uh, strike "postpone the chairman's report".)
22:40<csm-laptop>okay... well the Chair's report is *NOT* postponed he simply had nothing to discuss
22:40<Julian>csm-laptop: Yes, sorry. :)
22:40<csm-laptop>;-)
22:40<csm-laptop>okay so... that brings us to the web site report
22:40<csm-laptop>go Julian!
22:42<Julian>I have nothing to /report/ on this issue. I have waited for the webmaster and domain proposals to get approved by the council. My next steps are then to contact Meng wrt. the technical issues on setting up the website.
22:42<Julian>I was sort of short on time anyway, so I took the chance not to act before the two proposals got approved, most notably the webmaster one.
22:43<csm-laptop>well what do we need to do for you today...?
22:43*MarkK reiterates his wish that Meng had been here; sigh
22:43<Julian>Motion: Please approve the "Webmasters" proposal.
22:43<csm-laptop>second?
22:43<Julian>http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200503/0162.html
22:43<MarkK>seconded
22:43<csm-laptop>votes?
22:43<Julian>2243u: yes
22:43<grumpy>2243u: yeah
22:44<MarkK>2243u: yes
22:44<grumpy>yea, even
22:44<csm-laptop>so ordered
22:44<csm-laptop>next item?
22:44<Julian>Motion: Please approve the "Domains" proposal.
22:44<Julian>http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200503/0162.html, too.
22:44<csm-laptop>second?
22:44<grumpy>2244: seconded
22:44<csm-laptop>votes?
22:45<grumpy>2244u: yea
22:45<Julian>2244u: yes
22:45<MarkK>2244u: yes
22:45<csm-laptop>so ordered
22:45<csm-laptop>next item?
22:45<Julian>Thank you. Very much.
22:45<Julian>7. Status and discussion[5,6] with respect to the draft and the IETF. (Mark)
22:45<csm-laptop>comments?
22:45<Julian>MarkK?
22:46<Julian>freeside: ping
22:46<MarkK>Wayne, I think we need to get some clarification on why the RFC editor has seemingly taken a liberty to change keywords, whereas this seems inappropriate
22:46<MarkK>see: http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200504/0089.html
22:46<grumpy>to the best of my knowledge, the RFC editor has *not* changed that keyword.
22:47<grumpy>that is a note in the IESG stuff.
22:47<MarkK>and: http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com/200504/0095.html
22:47<MarkK>So, is this something we can safely ignore? (as in, not having it stand in the way of adoption)
22:47<grumpy>In the spf-classic-01 draft, I intend to clarify things as to *why* it is NOT RECOMMENDED to check the SPF records against other identities
22:47<Julian>As far as _my_ understanding goes, someone just _requested_ the keyword change.
22:48<grumpy>Julian: yeah
22:48<grumpy>The "clarification" is in the -01pre3 draft I just announced here a little while ago
22:49<MarkK>It did seem to be the RFC editor who made the suggestion; but I take your word for it. :)
22:49<grumpy>I know that Julian has seen it, I'm not sure about everyone else.
22:49<Julian>(I wonder why we have had such a difficult time getting a meeting date with Meng and everyone, if Meng doesn't even show up.)
22:49<Julian>grumpy: Clarification in -01pre3? Where exactly?
22:49<MarkK>I like a conclusive answers, if possible; so, is this something we can safely ignore? (as in, not having it stand in the way of adoption)
22:49<grumpy>it is basically the same as in -01pre2
22:50<grumpy>Well, I need to submit a -01 draft anyway, so it isn't being ignored.
22:50<Julian>MarkK: I _think_ so, but I'm no IESG/IETF veteran.
22:50<MarkK>but we stick with 'NOT RECOMMENDED', right?
22:51<grumpy>basically the clarification is, as outlined back one one of the last meetings, that I added a section explaining how things can break.
22:51<Julian>MarkK: I strongly object to loosening it to anything less.
22:51<grumpy>yes, it remains "NOT RECOMMENDED".
22:51<MarkK>julian: so do I. :)
22:51<grumpy>me too</aol>
22:51<MarkK>I meant only that I do not want the RFC editor have us tone the wording down
22:52<grumpy>I think we also need to contact the IESG/IETF and explain that spf-classic-01 is *NOT* part of the MARID process and is *NOT* part of SenderID
22:52<Julian>grumpy: Good point!
22:52<grumpy>The fact that the SenderID folks chose to base their work on the SPF-classic spec is not our problem.
22:53<grumpy>The MARID co-chairs and AD requested that the *MARID* drafts be made experimental.
22:53<grumpy>The SenderID folks didn't do that.
22:53<MarkK>yes, they seem to believe this is precursory to spf2.0
22:53<grumpy>The MARID co-chairs and AD said that the version string MUST be changed
22:53<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.
22:53<grumpy>The SenderID folks didn't do that.
22:53<Julian>http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution
22:54<grumpy>The IETF said that, due to trademark conflicts, the "SenderID" name should not be used.
22:54<grumpy>The SenderID folks didn't do that.
22:54*Julian tries to phrase a motion.
22:54<grumpy>This isn't our problem.
22:54<grumpy>Julian: I don't think we need another resolution.
22:55<grumpy>the comments made by the IESG were made before our previous resolution.
22:55<MarkK>grumpy: I would not mind such a resolution
22:55<Julian>grumpy: Not even as a clear position statement?
22:55<csm-laptop>I would not mind either
22:55<grumpy>it just hadn't been discussed on spf-discuss
22:55<Julian>grumpy: Well, the last press release doesn't exactly focus on _this_ issue.
22:55<csm-laptop>grumpy: yes it has
22:55<grumpy>Ok, we can have a motion to re-affirm the previousmotion.
22:56<Julian>...
22:56<MarkK>grumpy: yes, it has (with soaring emotions even)
22:56<csm-laptop>We affirm the "NOT RECOMMENDED" verbage?
22:56<MarkK>yes
22:56*Julian is just wording a motion.
22:56<csm-laptop>sounds good to me
22:56<csm-laptop>somebody want to put it into words?
22:56<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
22:57<MarkK>csm: julian is working on it :)
22:57<MarkK>grumpy: I did not check the exact date; but people, in the community, obviously have strong feelings about it
22:58<grumpy>oh, I agree.
22:58<grumpy>It is just that I think we addressed it with our motion before they noticed that we had addressed it.
22:58<grumpy>and, as per my vote on the motion, I completely agree with what the SPF folks said on spf-discuss.
22:58<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).
22:59<grumpy>what did the previous motion say?
22:59<Julian>(This way it is clear and any discussion about it can be considered concluded.)
22:59<Julian>grumpy: What previous motion?
23:00<Julian>There is #11 <http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/11> "SPF checking of the HELO identity shall be explicitly allowed".
23:00*grumpy searches
23:00<MarkK>julian: can we add "NOT RECOMMENDED" as keyword to the motion?
23:01<Julian>MarkK: I think "shall explicitly recommend against" is equivalent and sufficient. Don't you agree?
23:01<grumpy>Ok, it was talked about in the Feb 09 meeting
23:01<MarkK>I suppose so. :)
23:02<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.
23:02<csm-laptop>second?
23:02<MarkK>2302u: seconded
23:02<csm-laptop>votes?
23:02<Julian>2302u: yes
23:02<MarkK>2302u: yes
23:02<grumpy>2302u: yes
23:02<csm-laptop>so ordered
23:03<grumpy>Ok, I see the stuff in the minutes of the 2005/02/09 meeting, but I don't see a resolution
23:03<Julian>Thanks for concluding the spf-discuss discussion about this issue.
23:03<Julian>Not that I didn't like the discussion. But every discussion should have a conclusion.
23:04<csm-laptop>next item?
23:04<Julian>So we're definitely making progress on clarifying SPF's position.
23:04<grumpy>yeah
23:04<Julian>8. DNS Load Issue: Discussion. (Wayne)
23:05<csm-laptop>Wayne?
23:05<Julian>Heh.
23:05<grumpy>Ok, I *still* have no idea what this is about or how it got on the agenda.
23:05<Julian>I think it was something that was discussed lively on spf-discuss.
23:05<grumpy>well, I know that DNS load issues have been discussed a lot, but I don't know what we were supposed to discuss.
23:05<csm-laptop>Julian: can you summarize the 8000 messages that went across spf-discuss about this?
23:06<MarkK>yep; one of those other even livelier discussions :)
23:06<Julian>csm-laptop: No.
23:06<grumpy>I move we withdraw this item
23:06<Julian>...except that most of the subjects started with "Re: [spf-discuss] RE: RE:"
23:06<csm-laptop>bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha
23:07<Julian>(Sorry for the bad joke.)
23:07<MarkK>mostly, if I recall correctly, these were highly hypothetical situations
23:07<MarkK>and somewhat far-fetched, at times
23:07<Julian>Seriously, though, I think the current spec is pretty good at discussing the potential DNS load issues.
23:08<csm-laptop>okay so are we done with this issue then?
23:08<grumpy>I'm done...
23:08<Julian>csm-laptop: I'd like to inofficially report on one issue after the meeting has been officially concluded.
23:09<Julian>(This may not be appropriate for the meeting minutes.)
23:09<MarkK>it would seem the Excecutive branch did not make it again (nor is likely to)
23:09<Julian>I don't want to make the spf-announce-related motions without Meng present.
23:09<grumpy>Meng was on #spf a while back...
23:10<csm-laptop>can we move for a few moments to a "non-public" channel?
23:10<Julian>#spf-private
23:19<csm-laptop>okay
23:19<csm-laptop>so what's left?
23:19<MarkK>I think that was pretty much it
23:19<Julian>No official issues, I think.
23:20<Julian>One unofficial one, though.
23:20<csm-laptop>okay... what's that?
23:20<csm-laptop>oh wait
23:20<Julian>Can we conclude the meeting first?
23:20<csm-laptop>if there is no more official business I declare the meeting adjourned
23:21<grumpy>seconded
23:21<Julian>csm-laptop: "oh wait" -- Hum, anything else?
23:21<Julian>2320u: seconded
23:21<csm-laptop>the oh wait was when I realized I needed to adjourn
23:21<csm-laptop>votes?
23:21<MarkK>2320u: yes
23:21<Julian>2320u: yes
23:21<grumpy>2320u yes
23:21<csm-laptop>so ordered
23:21<grumpy>logs will be posted at 2359 UTC, as per normal.
23:21<Julian>Great. What a quick meeting we had!
23:21<csm-laptop>he-he
23:22<csm-laptop>so what's up?
23:22<Julian>Ok, guys.
23:22<grumpy>yes, we should do this more often. ;-)
23:22<MarkK>seriously, we should

This report was generated at Thu Apr 28 03:49:23 UTC 2005.