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/2005/05/05_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| csm | Chuck Mead |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| --- Wed May 4 20:03:14 UTC 2005 --- | ||
| 20:03 | <MarkK> | good evening |
| 20:28 | <grumpy> | hi... you are early for the meeting |
| 20:28 | <grumpy> | I have to go pick up my kids now. I'll try to be back before the start of the meeting, but if not, start w/o me. |
| 20:28 | <grumpy> | I will show up. |
| 21:00 | <csm-laptop> | I see Julian has not yet arrived |
| 21:00 | <freeside> | moo |
| 21:00 | <MarkK> | and wayne may not be back either |
| 21:00 | <MarkK> | yet, I mean |
| 21:01 | <freeside> | i'm here! |
| 21:01 | <csm-laptop> | okay well until one or both of them arrive we have no quorum |
| 21:01 | <csm-laptop> | howdy Meng! |
| 21:01 | <MarkK> | good to see you present, meng! |
| 21:01 | <freeside> | mmm, sorry i've been missing meetings |
| 21:01 | <csm-laptop> | we are too |
| 21:01 | <freeside> | thought y'all had a quorum without me. |
| 21:02 | <csm-laptop> | it's not always about quorum... |
| 21:02 | <csm-laptop> | you are a person of import... your opinion... doings etc. they all matter! |
| 21:02 | <MarkK> | some matters, like the spf-site, require your absolute presence |
| 21:02 | <csm-laptop> | yes they do |
| 21:03 | <csm-laptop> | the only way that wouldn't is if we were going to host elsewhere but I don't think we wanted to do that |
| 21:03 | <Julian> | Sorry for being late. |
| 21:03 | <csm-laptop> | cool... |
| 21:03 | <csm-laptop> | we have quorum now |
| 21:03 | <MarkK> | good, we have quorum :) |
| 21:03 | <csm-laptop> | so... |
| 21:03 | <Julian> | Who else is missing? |
| 21:03 | <csm-laptop> | the meeting will come to order |
| 21:04 | <csm-laptop> | for the record... Wayne said he would be late |
| 21:04 | <MarkK> | wayne said he may arrive a bit later |
| 21:04 | <Julian> | k |
| 21:04 | <csm-laptop> | we need to approve the minutes from the last meeting |
| 21:04 | <csm-laptop> | has everybody read them? |
| 21:05 | <Julian> | No. |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | they're posted right? |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | I read the irc log |
| 21:05 | <Julian> | For the first time, I cannot provide you with the last meeting's minutes. |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | okay... next item then |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | the chairman has no report |
| 21:05 | <Julian> | I will provide them tomorrow. |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | thank you |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | next item is the ED's report... Meng... that's you |
| 21:05 | <MarkK> | I a dying to get the executive report |
| 21:05 | <csm-laptop> | :-) |
| 21:06 | <csm-laptop> | so what's been going on Meng? |
| 21:08 | <csm-laptop> | Meng? |
| 21:09 | <MarkK> | (specifically, I'd like to hear whether you heard back on the HSAPRA deal) |
| 21:11 | <freeside> | mmmph, sorry |
| 21:11 | * | Julian assumes freeside is typing. |
| 21:11 | <freeside> | ED's report, not much, been going to conferences and speaking as usual |
| 21:11 | <freeside> | next week, antispam conference in tokyo, giving the keynote there |
| 21:12 | <Julian> | Good for you! :) |
| 21:12 | <MarkK> | did you hear back from the HSARPA people on why they turned us down? |
| 21:12 | <freeside> | been in touch with craig at microsoft, they've been trying to nudge the IETF/IESG into action re the various specs. |
| 21:12 | <freeside> | no, the HSARPA people are still in "uh, let me get back to you" mode. |
| 21:13 | <MarkK> | ok, thanks |
| 21:13 | <Julian> | Hmm. :-| |
| 21:13 | <freeside> | still working on building out karma and related technologies. |
| 21:13 | <Julian> | I hope they haven't already forgotten why they turned the proposal down. |
| 21:14 | <freeside> | no news to report on that front yet. |
| 21:14 | <Julian> | freeside: Can you specify "building out karma"? |
| 21:14 | <freeside> | we need an spfd that can handle about 10,000 queries per second. |
| 21:15 | <MarkK> | yikes |
| 21:15 | <freeside> | and i want to integrate rbldnsd functionality into the code directly too. |
| 21:15 | <Julian> | I guess Shevek is working on that (fast spfd)? |
| 21:15 | <freeside> | so, writing spec for that, trying to arrange funding to pay for development. |
| 21:15 | <freeside> | yes, shevek is working on that. |
| 21:15 | <freeside> | that's why he's been mumbling about Java and C recently. |
| 21:16 | <freeside> | also, i've been consulting at earthlink helping them roll out DK and SPF and whatnot. |
| 21:16 | <freeside> | it's going rather slowly, because earthlink's a big ISP and you want to avoid customers picking up the phone and complaining about anything :) |
| 21:17 | <Julian> | Understandable. |
| 21:17 | <freeside> | but Earthlink is now signing most outbound mail with DK, i'm told, so that's one big step for sender authentication. |
| 21:17 | <freeside> | except for when the mail is From: somebody@yahoo.com, but sent via Earthlink MX servers. |
| 21:17 | <freeside> | then Earthlink doesn't sign it. |
| 21:17 | <freeside> | adding the Sender: header caused Outlook users to see "From authenticated-sender@earthlink.net on behalf of somebody@yahoo.com". |
| 21:18 | <freeside> | that caused a lot of customers to pick up the phone and complain :) |
| 21:18 | <Julian> | io:~> qspf earthlink.com |
| 21:18 | <Julian> | io:~> qspf earthlink.net |
| 21:18 | <Julian> | "v=spf1 ip4:207.217.120.0/23 ip4:207.69.200.0/24 ip4:209.86.93.0/24 ip4:209.86.89.0/24 ip4:207.69.195.0/24 ?all" |
| 21:18 | <Julian> | Huh? |
| 21:18 | <freeside> | earthlink.net is the domain used in email. |
| 21:18 | <Julian> | So why doesn't have .com "-all"? |
| 21:19 | <Julian> | So why doesn't .com have "-all"? |
| 21:19 | * | Julian is trying to make sense. |
| 21:19 | <freeside> | because of the forwarding thing. |
| 21:19 | <freeside> | had a chat with mark lentczner a few months ago about what we would've done differently. |
| 21:20 | <Julian> | "we"? |
| 21:20 | <freeside> | one thing he mentioned was that it might be a good idea to leave out the "-all" completely. |
| 21:20 | <MarkK> | O? |
| 21:20 | <freeside> | in other words, if we, the spf community, had just focused on making assertions for when you do know it's from the sender --- ie. all the positive mechanisms, like ip4, mx, a, etc. |
| 21:21 | <Julian> | I doubt that's what most of the community want. |
| 21:21 | <freeside> | and then remaining mum about explicitly denying forgeries --- eg. "if it didn't match, well, we're not saying it's from us, and we're not saying it's not, so you draw your own conclusions" |
| 21:21 | <MarkK> | Is not the whole point of SPF to determine 'fails'? |
| 21:21 | <freeside> | i agree that most of the community prefers "-all", but the small very vocal minority of objectors have seized on the forwarding problem as a major flaw in spf. |
| 21:21 | <Julian> | I guess that's a matter of perspective. |
| 21:22 | <freeside> | two years ago i would've agreed that determining "fails" was the #1 feature of SPF. now i'm thinking it would've been less controversial to say that the whole point of SPF is to determine passes, and allow people to draw their own conclusions about the rest. |
| 21:22 | <Julian> | We won't change a thing if we see to it that every legacy behavior from 20 years ago stays legitimate. |
| 21:22 | <freeside> | that would've quieted the detractors. |
| 21:23 | <freeside> | and done more for advancing the project as a whole. |
| 21:23 | * | csm-laptop thinks it is always difficult to get someone to admit the technology they're working with is flawed at it's core... did any of us think we'd be dealing with this problem 25 years ago? I did not! |
| 21:23 | <freeside> | so, that said, i think it would do a lot for advancing the project as a whole to finalize the spec, and get it published as an RFC, one way or another. |
| 21:23 | <freeside> | i really think that a freeze on the spec is long overdue. and i think getting it RFC'ed is our biggest priority. |
| 21:24 | <Julian> | Yes, we might have advanced the project as a whole, but it would have been pointless, because virtually no one would be rejecting on a "Fail". |
| 21:24 | <MarkK> | if forwarders can 'fail' without actually failing -- and the rest of the world too -- then we have effectively accomplished nothing. I still like to think that dewtermining a 'fail' is why we all went into this |
| 21:24 | <freeside> | now, i personally think this is best achieved in cooperation with MS, rather than inviting a conflict with them, but that's taking us ahead in our agenda. |
| 21:24 | <freeside> | so, i'm done with my report, let's go on with the meeting. |
| 21:24 | <Julian> | I agree that finalizing the spec is the top priority. |
| 21:24 | <csm-laptop> | okay... I would like to stop the discussion right here for a moment |
| 21:24 | <Julian> | k |
| 21:25 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: when you say that you "think this is best achieved in cooperation with MS, rather than inviting a conflict with them" what's the basis for your presumption that there can *BE* cooperation with Microsoft |
| 21:26 | <Julian> | ...and who has invited a conflict between MS and SPF? |
| 21:26 | <csm-laptop> | I ask because after long observance I do not believe they are good partners nor do I see them "cooperating" with anyone... they are the 800lb gorilla and they bully rather than cooperate |
| 21:26 | <MarkK> | Odd, there I was thinking we had, de facto, pretty much severed our cooperation with MS |
| 21:27 | <Julian> | Wanting to cooperate with a 400 lbs gorilla, and then letting him proceed as he wishes so as not to "invite" a conflict means letting oneself be abused. IMHO. |
| 21:27 | <csm-laptop> | wait guys... lets give freeside a chance to speak |
| 21:27 | * | Julian shuts up. |
| 21:27 | <csm-laptop> | there are two questions asked |
| 21:27 | <MarkK> | Julian: yes, I still have the bitter aftertaste of MARID in my mouth |
| 21:27 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 21:28 | <csm-laptop> | Meng? |
| 21:28 | <csm-laptop> | these are fair questions... please answer... as an intelligent man you must be basing your opinion on something... |
| 21:28 | <freeside> | hrr? |
| 21:28 | <freeside> | what's my basis for my presumption that there can be cooperation with MS? |
| 21:28 | <csm-laptop> | yes |
| 21:29 | <freeside> | well, i like to think there's a basis for cooperating with anyone in the email space. |
| 21:29 | <freeside> | so far i see their involvement as being a net plus to the spf movement... a lot of people went ahead and published records after hearing that MS had dropped its XML format and was reusing SPF's format. |
| 21:29 | <freeside> | i know the SPF purist community aren't happy with the reuse, but the fact is a lot more people are publishing now than they did the other way. |
| 21:30 | <freeside> | so that's my basis. |
| 21:30 | <csm-laptop> | okay... have you talked to Wayne about the stats? |
| 21:30 | <freeside> | also they're talking to the IESG folks, pushing for RFC status. |
| 21:30 | <csm-laptop> | adoption is in the toilet |
| 21:30 | <Julian> | Huh?? |
| 21:30 | <MarkK> | huh?? |
| 21:30 | <csm-laptop> | adoption has fallen off significantly |
| 21:30 | <freeside> | that's not what wayne's stats sounded like to me |
| 21:31 | <csm-laptop> | that's what he and I were discussing after last weeks meeting |
| 21:31 | <freeside> | sounded to me like it's kept on growing. |
| 21:31 | <csm-laptop> | well perhaps I misinterpreted... we can ask him when he gets here |
| 21:31 | <Julian> | csm-laptop: You mean that the _increase_ in deployment has slowed down, or that deployment itself has decreased? |
| 21:31 | <MarkK> | we need a boost now, like getting the RFC |
| 21:31 | <freeside> | also, from my mailbox, as far as i can tell, the folks who aren't publishing are fully covered by the best_guess, and that's good enough for me. |
| 21:31 | <csm-laptop> | lets wait for Wayne on that |
| 21:31 | <freeside> | almost every legitimate message that has come into my mailbox either passes explicit SPF, or passes best_guess. |
| 21:32 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: you say "well, i like to think there's a basis for cooperating with anyone in the email space." |
| 21:32 | <freeside> | and now that my orientation has turned to looking for passes, rather than rejecting fails, that's a really useful result. |
| 21:33 | <csm-laptop> | I should like to point out that though you may "like to think" it the facts as they exist say otherwise with respect to Microsoft |
| 21:33 | <Julian> | By (mostly?) ignoring fails, you ignore half of SPF's potential. If not more. |
| 21:33 | <freeside> | sure, we can agree to disagree on that. |
| 21:34 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: it's a critical point... I want to be convinced... prove it to me |
| 21:34 | <MarkK> | Sigh; I am thoroghly confused now; SPF is an anti-forgery tool, right? That kinda implies the use of 'fail'. |
| 21:34 | <Julian> | MarkK: I think in Meng's eyes SPF hasn't primarily been an anti-forgery tool for a long time, but a reputation confidence tool. |
| 21:34 | <freeside> | i use it as an anti-forgery tool by simply inferring negative qualities due to the lack of a pass. |
| 21:35 | <freeside> | you don't need an explicit fail to think "hm, probably bad". |
| 21:35 | <freeside> | most antispam engines are doing exactly this anyway. |
| 21:35 | <freeside> | if people want to score a neutral result in a mild negative direction, where a pass result would be scored in a positive direction, then it is working as an antiforgery tool, whether or not an explicit fail gets returned. |
| 21:35 | <freeside> | and that's consistent with the spirit of all this. |
| 21:36 | <csm-laptop> | guys... |
| 21:36 | <csm-laptop> | in an effort to bring some order to this can we handle one point at a time? |
| 21:36 | <freeside> | you saw the maawg testing results, right? i did post these to spf-private? |
| 21:36 | <MarkK> | Honestly, I cannot really see this; spammers publish SPF records, too; are we goin to rewarded their 'passes' now? |
| 21:36 | <Julian> | (freeside: You said they were preliminary.) |
| 21:37 | <Julian> | MarkK: In an anti-forgery sense: yes. |
| 21:37 | <freeside> | spammers publish spf records, and so spf is working as an anti-forgery tool. |
| 21:37 | <freeside> | this is why i've been working on reputation as the next step. |
| 21:37 | <Julian> | MarkK: Reputation builds upon confidence of authenticity. |
| 21:37 | <Julian> | But please let's get back to Chuck's question. |
| 21:37 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 21:37 | <csm-laptop> | can I restate? |
| 21:38 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: you say "well, i like to think there's a basis for cooperating with anyone in the email space." |
| 21:38 | <csm-laptop> | I should like to point out that though you may "like to think" it the facts as they exist say otherwise with respect to Microsoft |
| 21:38 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: what do you say? |
| 21:39 | <Julian> | To put the question in slightly different words: what has Microsoft _deliberately_ and _voluntarily_ done to help _us_? Mostly, we have helped _them_. |
| 21:39 | <MarkK> | And if I may add to that: is there any specific indication that you may have received, Meng, that leads you to believe they are wling to cooperate? |
| 21:41 | <freeside> | well, yeah, they asked me, for instance, which draft they should submit to the IETF --- lentczner's or wayne's. |
| 21:41 | <Julian> | Interesting. |
| 21:41 | <freeside> | if they weren't cooperating, they would have submitted their own version of the spf spec. |
| 21:41 | <MarkK> | hmmm |
| 21:41 | <freeside> | they're still basing sender-id around that as the core. |
| 21:42 | <csm-laptop> | uhm... |
| 21:42 | <csm-laptop> | I do not think I would say it that way... |
| 21:42 | <freeside> | so, the political reality is, if the IETF is to approve something, it'll help a lot of that's the version that MS submits, with our cooperation. |
| 21:42 | <Julian> | "they're still basing sender-id around that as the core" --- They are free to do that, but they should stop subliminally changing SPF's semantics. |
| 21:42 | <csm-laptop> | their behavior only seems to be cooperation because you say it is |
| 21:42 | <freeside> | if the SPF community submits a draft that is in conflict with the MS work, the IETF is not likely to approve that; they're likely to send it back and say "you guys need to work together and come up with a version that you can both agree on." |
| 21:43 | <csm-laptop> | there is nothing they're doing that is anywhere near "cooperation" |
| 21:43 | <freeside> | and i don't want that to happen, because, as we said earlier, the first priority is getting an RFC. |
| 21:43 | <MarkK> | I like the ide of them submitting wayne's draft; but somehow I seriously doubt they will |
| 21:43 | <csm-laptop> | why in the hell doesn't Microsoft simply write a separate spec for sender-id? |
| 21:43 | <csm-laptop> | why are we stuck in this bucket with them? |
| 21:44 | <Julian> | If that's were official policy of the IETF (and I doubt it is), provided that Microsoft is using _our_ work, they would ridicule themselves.. |
| 21:44 | <freeside> | because the IETF wants us to work together with them on something the IESG can approve. |
| 21:44 | <csm-laptop> | to be precise who is "them"? |
| 21:44 | <freeside> | that's why we're in the bucket, so i say we should make the best of a sticky situation and come out with a decent compromise. |
| 21:44 | <MarkK> | here is what I fear: the moment we hand the wayne-draft over to them, for them to subit it, I bet you real money we'll see it submitted with a few modifications of their own |
| 21:44 | <freeside> | because the IETF wants us to work together with MS on something the IESG can approve. |
| 21:45 | <freeside> | actually all the modifications we've been discussing have been at the IESG's request. |
| 21:45 | <freeside> | if wayne showed up around now we could ask him if the IETF ADs have been in contact with him directly about the draft. |
| 21:46 | <csm-laptop> | wtf! |
| 21:46 | <freeside> | the IESG has been saying, "ok, this is an issue, and that is an issue" and MS has been revving the specs in response to that. |
| 21:46 | <csm-laptop> | SPF !=SID |
| 21:46 | <csm-laptop> | revving whose spec? |
| 21:46 | <freeside> | the whole passel of sender id specs. |
| 21:46 | <csm-laptop> | but SPF != SID |
| 21:46 | <Julian> | Can I have the mike for a minute? Ok, hrrrm. Look, real cooperation would have looked like this: Microsoft would have delegated one or two guys as contact persons to the SPF project, and then we could have discussed what their goals and what ours were, and then we would have discussed how we could achieve both without conflict. |
| 21:46 | <Julian> | Nothing even near to that happened. |
| 21:46 | <MarkK> | here, here |
| 21:47 | <freeside> | sure, that happened, you just weren't there for most of it. |
| 21:47 | <csm-laptop> | not even close |
| 21:47 | <csm-laptop> | and when did this take place? |
| 21:47 | <freeside> | the people they delegated were craig and harry, and they've been in touch with me and mark on a regular basis for most of the last year. |
| 21:47 | <Julian> | Probably before the council was formed. |
| 21:47 | <Julian> | Yeah. |
| 21:47 | <MarkK> | meng, I think wayne would have had to have been contacted; and I'm pretty sure he wasn't |
| 21:48 | <freeside> | ok. |
| 21:48 | <Julian> | Unfortunately, what you and those guys "decided" was not what the very most part of the SPF people wanted. |
| 21:48 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: since the formation of this body has their been any cooperation of the type you mention? |
| 21:48 | <freeside> | nope, they've continued talking to me mostly. |
| 21:48 | <freeside> | so if you want i can ask them to contact each of you, but i don't see them coming to any agreement with the council... |
| 21:49 | <MarkK> | and they're willing to put the wayne draft forward 'as is'? |
| 21:49 | <freeside> | their goals are to check the headers, and the council's goals seem to be to prevent them from doing so. |
| 21:49 | <csm-laptop> | wait |
| 21:49 | <csm-laptop> | wait wait wait |
| 21:49 | <Julian> | The problem is, it's probably too late now because MS has already decided how to achieve their goals. |
| 21:49 | <csm-laptop> | WAIT! |
| 21:49 | <csm-laptop> | be quiet |
| 21:49 | <csm-laptop> | please |
| 21:50 | <Julian> | freeside: No, they _may_ check the headers. Just not against v=spf1 records. |
| 21:50 | <freeside> | we could set up the goals to be not in conflict, by saying, the spf community wants to check the return-path, and ms wants to check the headers, and if each party does that, then the goals are not in conflict. |
| 21:50 | <csm-laptop> | god dammit Julian |
| 21:50 | <freeside> | hehe. |
| 21:50 | <Julian> | It's not the council's fault that the largest part of v=spf1 records haven't been published with the headers in mind. |
| 21:50 | * | Julian shuts up now. |
| 21:51 | <freeside> | anyway, if the council feels that the best way to get an RFC published is to ignore microsoft and submit an SPF spec directly, then we should vote on that, and go ahead... |
| 21:51 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: let me take a moment... and make something clear with a bit more precision |
| 21:52 | <csm-laptop> | Microsoft wants to check the headers... |
| 21:52 | <csm-laptop> | this council is not opposed to this |
| 21:52 | <csm-laptop> | so long as those header checks do not have to be defined in our SPF specification |
| 21:53 | <Julian> | Wrong. |
| 21:53 | <csm-laptop> | we never have been opposed to them doing anything they want with their own technology |
| 21:54 | <csm-laptop> | what we are opposed to and have voted on to signal our opposition... is them mandating to us that we have to take care of their needs for Sender-ID in the SPF spec and.... |
| 21:54 | <csm-laptop> | them co-opting the spfv1 |
| 21:54 | <csm-laptop> | and |
| 21:55 | <csm-laptop> | publicly mixing the message as though they are *US* and our communities technology is theirs etc. etc. etc. ad-nauseum |
| 21:55 | <csm-laptop> | as to any possibility of cooperation... |
| 21:55 | <csm-laptop> | I honestly have to say that we cannot make a deal with this devil... |
| 21:55 | <csm-laptop> | to do so is deluded... |
| 21:55 | <freeside> | the SPF spec that lentczner submitted ages ago doesn't even mention sender-id, or headers, at all. |
| 21:56 | <csm-laptop> | as they have already done... they had a chance and were much more concerned with protecting their dubious IP than solving this problem |
| 21:56 | <Julian> | So why do they prefer it over Wayne's? |
| 21:56 | <csm-laptop> | okay I give up... you guys hash this out... I will do other things and peek in occasionally |
| 21:57 | <grumpy> | ARRGH! |
| 21:57 | <MarkK> | Julian: maybe because we specifically state that using v=spf1 records for anything else than MAIL FROM/HELO/EHLO is NOT RECOMMENDED? |
| 21:57 | <Julian> | csm-laptop: Why can't you simply ignore me? Your IRC client should have that feature. |
| 21:57 | <freeside> | because wayne's spec goes out of its way to antagonize the PRA use of records, yes. |
| 21:57 | * | grumpy realized on the way home that he *added* an hour to EDT instead of subtracted. |
| 21:57 | <freeside> | specifically, the bit that says |
| 21:57 | <freeside> | Checking other identities against SPF records is NOT RECOMMENDED |
| 21:57 | <freeside> | because there are cases (e.g. Section 9.3) that are known to give |
| 21:57 | <freeside> | incorrect results. |
| 21:58 | * | grumpy tries to catch up |
| 21:58 | <freeside> | it's not really necessary to say that, and if the SPF spec remains silent on that point, then it really increases the likelihood that we'll get an RFC out of it. |
| 21:58 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: our spec creates the spf DNS record we're not designing for use elsewhere |
| 21:58 | <freeside> | so, i see it as a question of ideological purity vs getting-it-published pragmatism. |
| 21:58 | <grumpy> | freeside: are you saying that we should not give a warning about known problems? |
| 21:59 | <freeside> | sure, we should give a warning about known problems. i think section 9.3 is great. |
| 22:00 | <freeside> | verbatim forwarding is a problem for SPF, because most forwarders don't rewrite the mail-from. |
| 22:00 | <freeside> | verbatim forwarding is a problem for PRA, because most forwarders don't add a Resent-Whatever header. |
| 22:00 | <MarkK> | Freeside: publishing v=spf1 records with headers in mind will probabably give you want you want; however, v=spf1 records are, for the most part, published to cover MAIL FROM/HELO. So yes, I the is NOT RECOMMENDED clause makes good sense |
| 22:00 | <grumpy> | and one of the solutions mentioned in section 9.3 is that SES and a specialized DNS server can solve the forwarding problem by the sender |
| 22:01 | <freeside> | if we say, "ok, we accept that cost, forwarders need to suck it up and do SRS" and encourage the use of SPF records in mail-from scope, then it's hypocritical to not accept a similar argument, that forwarders need to suck it up and add a Resent-* whatever. |
| 22:02 | <freeside> | i'm just saying, if we take out the NOT RECOMMENDED clause, it'll help a lot to get the RFC published. |
| 22:02 | <freeside> | if we don't take it out, it won't help get the RFC published. |
| 22:02 | <grumpy> | freeside: we don't talk about what SenderID has to do. |
| 22:02 | <grumpy> | we talk about what spf-classic has to do. |
| 22:02 | <csm-laptop> | nor do we care |
| 22:02 | <freeside> | so, which way do you want to make the tradeoff: purity of principle, and being right, or RFC publication, and helping to solve the problem? |
| 22:02 | * | Julian seems to misunderstand the IRC medium. |
| 22:02 | <grumpy> | and one of those options for solving the forwarding problem is SES. |
| 22:03 | <csm-laptop> | SPF != Sender-ID |
| 22:03 | <MarkK> | we just adopted a motion, the other day, to keep the NOT RECOMMENDED clause; I still stand by my vote |
| 22:03 | <grumpy> | ditto |
| 22:03 | <csm-laptop> | ditto |
| 22:03 | <freeside> | ok, good, then we know where we stand, and we can move on :) |
| 22:04 | <freeside> | oh, can we add the website to the agenda? |
| 22:04 | <csm-laptop> | I still want to understand how it is that we can cooperate with Microsoft |
| 22:04 | <freeside> | well, the spf council seems to have decided that it can't cooperate with microsoft. |
| 22:05 | <freeside> | now it's up to the IESG to adjudicate the matter. |
| 22:05 | <csm-laptop> | well I was asking before... |
| 22:05 | <grumpy> | freeside: Microsoft has never talked with anyone but you. |
| 22:05 | <csm-laptop> | how has Microsoft requested our cooperation? |
| 22:05 | <grumpy> | I'm perfectly willing to work with microsoft |
| 22:06 | <grumpy> | in particular I an willing to help develop the spf2.0 record format |
| 22:06 | <MarkK> | No, we have not decided that; but I have yet to see a real sign of cooperation from them. Which, now wayne is here, prompts the question: did MS contact you for cooperation? |
| 22:06 | <grumpy> | I think there is a lot that can be done to make it interoperate with v=spf1 |
| 22:06 | <grumpy> | MarkK: No, MS has never contacted me for cooperation |
| 22:06 | <csm-laptop> | how has Microsoft requested our cooperation? |
| 22:06 | <grumpy> | freeside: what are you talking about? |
| 22:06 | <csm-laptop> | Meng? |
| 22:06 | <MarkK> | that's what I figured |
| 22:07 | <grumpy> | freeside: are you pulling one of those "if you aren't fully with MS, you must be against them" things? |
| 22:07 | <csm-laptop> | Meng: how has Microsoft requested our cooperation? |
| 22:08 | <freeside> | when you say "our", do you mean the council, or what. |
| 22:08 | <freeside> | i know mark lentczner and i have spent more time than we would like in conference calls and f2f meetings with the ms guys. |
| 22:08 | <Julian> | I guess Microsoft has gone the easy way and decided not to talk to people they knew wouldn't go along with their "we already know what we want and how to achieve it". |
| 22:08 | <csm-laptop> | the community for which the council speaks (which includes the council) |
| 22:08 | <freeside> | well, they've been mostly dealing with me and mark as the points of contact. |
| 22:09 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: when was your last contact with them? |
| 22:09 | <freeside> | if you would prefer that they deal with other points of contact, just let me know who to point them at :) |
| 22:09 | <grumpy> | when was your last contact with MarkL? |
| 22:09 | <grumpy> | I would say any people on the council would be fine points of contact |
| 22:09 | <grumpy> | the spf-discuss mailing list also |
| 22:09 | <freeside> | er, i IM'ed him two days ago, and he emailed me yesterday |
| 22:09 | <freeside> | mark, i mean. |
| 22:09 | <grumpy> | freeside: cool |
| 22:10 | <grumpy> | is he still doing anything with SPF? |
| 22:10 | <Julian> | They could talk to spf-council@moongroup.com if they want. |
| 22:10 | <freeside> | harry katz CC'ed me on april 26 and today in mails to ted hardie about how the draft submission was going. |
| 22:10 | <grumpy> | Ok |
| 22:10 | <grumpy> | Ted Hardie has never contacted me.... |
| 22:10 | <freeside> | mark seems to be taking some time off SPF, since at this point i think he sees it as up to the IETF for RFC process... |
| 22:10 | <freeside> | well, i can ask ted hardie to contact you, if you would like that. |
| 22:11 | <grumpy> | or at least cc me |
| 22:11 | <grumpy> | or the council |
| 22:11 | <MarkK> | Meng, if you could bring out word that they can contact us, I'm sure we'd be open to hear what they have to say |
| 22:11 | <Julian> | Or spf-private@moongroup.com if they want privacy. |
| 22:11 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 22:11 | <freeside> | ok. |
| 22:12 | <grumpy> | freeside: did Ted contact you aobut the spf-classic draft or about the SenderID drafts? |
| 22:12 | <grumpy> | I knot the latter ismarked as "needs revision" |
| 22:12 | <grumpy> | s/knot/know/ |
| 22:12 | <freeside> | ted hasn't contacted me directly, i've just been following the CCs. |
| 22:12 | <grumpy> | s/ismarked/is marked/ |
| 22:12 | <MarkK> | But, with all respect for MarkL and the great effort he put into his draft, he is no longer an official point of contact, wayne is (or the council in toto). |
| 22:12 | <freeside> | well, i suspect that if they contact you, the first thing you'll say is, reuse of v=spf1 for headers is wrong, and they'll say, sorry, we're doing it; and you won't have any grounds to continue the conversation; but i could be wrong :) |
| 22:12 | <MarkK> | I mean, it does us no good if MS is talking to MarkL |
| 22:13 | <MarkK> | we need to hear it too :) |
| 22:13 | <Julian> | "and they'll say, sorry, we're doing it [anyway]" --- Yeah, that's the point. They don't want to respect our concerns. |
| 22:13 | <freeside> | for them to even admit return-path checking to SenderID is a big step for them, and i saw that as a sign of cooperation. there was a point when they were saying, no return-path checking allowed. so coming down from that position i think is a good step. |
| 22:13 | <freeside> | this was all months ago at this point, like october/november 2004. |
| 22:14 | <grumpy> | Thatis fine for SenderID. |
| 22:14 | <grumpy> | I don't see what this has to do with spf-classic. |
| 22:14 | <grumpy> | We need a draft for spf-classic |
| 22:14 | <Julian> | Look, I'm all for making compromises, but redefining the semantics of already-published v=spf1 records might imply alienating adopters. |
| 22:15 | <Julian> | And that is a step I'm not willing to take. |
| 22:15 | <freeside> | well, hey, we took a vote on it, it's really up to the IETF at this point. |
| 22:15 | <MarkK> | If they're serious, I'd like to hear from them; but I doubt it |
| 22:15 | <csm-laptop> | I still do not see what sender-Id and SPF have to do with one another... I know that Sender-ID wants to use the spfv1 records but that usage has nothing to do with SPF |
| 22:15 | <Julian> | The reason why MS won't back off from using v=spf1 records is that they want to benefit from the large adoption volume. |
| 22:16 | <MarkK> | wayne is right: we need to focus on getting our spf classic draft published |
| 22:16 | <csm-laptop> | Julian: and I don't give a shit if they do... just don't try to make us support that usage in the SPF classic spec |
| 22:16 | <grumpy> | improved designs of spf2.0 records could greatly ease the re-use of v=spf1 where such re-use is technically sound. |
| 22:16 | <Julian> | MarkK: Agreed, so let's move on. |
| 22:17 | <Julian> | We're not getting anywhere right now. |
| 22:17 | <Julian> | (Mostly.) |
| 22:17 | <grumpy> | (I'm reading the scroll back... that is something. ;-) |
| 22:17 | <freeside> | supporting SenderID in the spf-classic spec would be: "Receivers MAY also check v=spf1 records against the PRA". what we have now is explicit "NOT RECOMMENDED". i'm just suggesting we remain silent on it. |
| 22:17 | <csm-laptop> | Is the ED's report completed then? |
| 22:17 | <csm-laptop> | WHAT? |
| 22:17 | <freeside> | if we remain silent on it, it'll be much more likely to get published. |
| 22:17 | <csm-laptop> | BULLSHIT! |
| 22:18 | <Julian> | Stop it. |
| 22:18 | <Julian> | We're not getting anywhere right now. |
| 22:18 | <freeside> | hey, point of order, anyone's allowed to call bullshit on anyone else at any time, i support csm :) |
| 22:18 | <csm-laptop> | what we have now is explicit "NOT RECOMMENDED" but we don't mention the PRA |
| 22:18 | <Julian> | Perhaps we should (recommending against it). *duck* |
| 22:19 | <Julian> | Just joking. |
| 22:19 | <csm-laptop> | we are not smacking anyone around... we are simply saying this spec uses this record for this purpose... nothing else is contemplated in this spec |
| 22:19 | <grumpy> | freeside: it if is any consolation, I have lobbied against a "MUST NOT", so "NOT RECOMMENDED" *is* a compromise... |
| 22:19 | <MarkK> | Meng is probably right; question is, do we want to sacrifice and pollute the use of v=spf1 records (with all ensuing collateral damage if ppl check he wrong things), just to get a faster adoption? |
| 22:19 | <csm-laptop> | WAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT |
| 22:19 | <csm-laptop> | we are not smacking anyone around... we are simply saying this spec uses this record for this purpose... nothing else is contemplated in this spec |
| 22:20 | <freeside> | you'll notice that the DNS specs don't say "use of MX records for resolving HTTP requests is NOT RECOMMENDED". |
| 22:20 | <csm-laptop> | if the Sender-ID people want to use it *FINE* just don't ask us to write their stuff in to SPF-Classic |
| 22:20 | <Julian> | freeside: Exactly, and no one else suggests using MX records for HTTP requests, so remaining silent is a valid option. |
| 22:20 | <freeside> | the opposite of 1 is -1. the opposite of 1 can also be 0. i'm going for the 0 solution. |
| 22:20 | <csm-laptop> | oh that's great.... I point out we have an apple and you say it's an orange? |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | so, let's remain silent on it, and take out the "NOT RECOMMENDED". |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html section 6. |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | In particular, they MUST only be used where it is |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | on implementors where the method is not required for |
| 22:21 | <freeside> | interoperability. |
| 22:21 | <csm-laptop> | Wayne? |
| 22:22 | <grumpy> | right, and for interoperation, using the v=spf1 records for the wrong thing causes harm. |
| 22:22 | <MarkK> | freeside: you are right about that MX thingy; but if a large entity announces they will use 'your' records in a different, an dslightly incompatible way, then setting a scope on the usage seems a word to the wise |
| 22:22 | <freeside> | a word to the wise, or a word to the holier-than-thou slashdot crowd? |
| 22:23 | <grumpy> | ? |
| 22:23 | <freeside> | ...the wise have already moved on from all this... let's just get it published and work on something more productive. |
| 22:23 | <MarkK> | a word to the wise to everyone publishing spf records, or planning to |
| 22:23 | <Julian> | freeside: Please! Don't behave as if our concerns were illegitimate! Yes, our concern may be weighted differently than the four of us do it, but you simply _cannot_ say it is completely invalid. |
| 22:24 | <MarkK> | ppl want to know it is 'safe' to do so; i.e. it will not be misused |
| 22:24 | <freeside> | a real word to the wise would be, "ok, you guys gotta be careful now because MS is going to do this with the records". |
| 22:24 | <grumpy> | should we put that in the spec? |
| 22:24 | <csm-laptop> | oh for $deities sake! |
| 22:24 | <csm-laptop> | all we're trying to do is say: the spec was designed for this purpose... no other |
| 22:24 | <MarkK> | I guess the NOT RECOMMEND covers exactly what you just said, meng |
| 22:25 | <grumpy> | does the IETF/IESG think that the spf-classic I-Ds are really a replacement for the marid-protocol I-D? |
| 22:26 | <grumpy> | if so, that could be a very large part of the confusion. |
| 22:26 | <freeside> | i don't know what the IETF/IESG think ... maybe we should ask them :) |
| 22:26 | <csm-laptop> | a capital idea |
| 22:26 | <grumpy> | yeah, that might be a good idea |
| 22:26 | <grumpy> | I wasn't aware that the IETF/IESG was talking to *anyone* in the SPF community |
| 22:26 | <grumpy> | I feel kind of blindsided to learn that they have |
| 22:27 | <csm-laptop> | more than a little bit |
| 22:27 | <MarkK> | who did they talk to then, if not wayne?? |
| 22:27 | <freeside> | i move that grumpy should email ted hardy and scott hollenbeck and say, hey, what's the status, guys |
| 22:27 | <freeside> | er, ted hardie, sorry |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | I will second that motion |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | wait, |
| 22:28 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | let me cut and past my TODO list on this subject |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | hold on |
| 22:28 | <MarkK> | it it appropriate for him to do that, at this time in the process? |
| 22:28 | <freeside> | votus interruptus |
| 22:28 | <csm-laptop> | freeside: sounds like you've dated some single mom's? |
| 22:28 | <freeside> | heh |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * draft letter to IESG/RFC-Editor/etc about the new SPF-classic I-D |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * Proposed Standard, not Experimental |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * Relationship between SPF, MARID and SenderID |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * SPF was never considered by the MARID WG |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * MS/Meng didn't advance the MARID drafts. |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * MS/Meng didn't use spf2.0 |
| 22:28 | <grumpy> | * MS/Meng still use SenderID |
| 22:28 | <freeside> | where did that come from? haha. |
| 22:29 | <grumpy> | Ok, those are notes to myself |
| 22:29 | <csm-laptop> | we get the gist |
| 22:29 | <csm-laptop> | maybe what we need is a draft letter? |
| 22:29 | <grumpy> | is that the kind of letter I should send to the IESG/ADs? |
| 22:29 | <freeside> | the IETF is hoping to publish one set of specs that represent the SPF community, MS, and MARID, all at once, and so far Meng, Microsoft, and Mark have given the IETF no reason to think that won't be an achievable goal, under the name "Sender ID". So the 3M crowd needs to be either contradicted by the SPF council to the IETF, or educated differently :) |
| 22:30 | <Julian> | "is hoping to publish one set of specs that represent the SPF community, MS, and MARID, all at once" --- That's gonna be interesting. |
| 22:30 | <csm-laptop> | highly infeasible |
| 22:31 | <grumpy> | Well, not entirely |
| 22:31 | <Julian> | Especially since "Meng, Microsoft, and Mark" don't exactly represent the "SPF community". |
| 22:31 | <freeside> | rather than drafting a letter, i suggest wayne just ask ted and scott informally what the status is, and what they're hoping to see happen. |
| 22:31 | <csm-laptop> | not to mention flammable |
| 22:31 | <grumpy> | *IF* there is more work done to support the spf2.0 spec to allow for better re-use of v=spf1 records. |
| 22:31 | <freeside> | and CC the council on all communications. |
| 22:31 | <csm-laptop> | grumpy: can you simply start ball rolling as Meng suggests? I think it would be very informative |
| 22:31 | <grumpy> | freeside: would it be appropriate to forward the communication you have recieved about the spf-classic draft to me? |
| 22:32 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: yes |
| 22:32 | <grumpy> | I was intending to do that when I submitted the spf-classic-01 draft |
| 22:32 | <MarkK> | I was just going to say, Julian: why would we need to convine MarkL of anything?? |
| 22:32 | <csm-laptop> | okay... Meng made a motion to that effect |
| 22:32 | <csm-laptop> | Wayne seconds iirc |
| 22:32 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 22:32 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 22:32 | <grumpy> | go ahead and vote |
| 22:32 | <Julian> | 2227u: yes |
| 22:32 | <grumpy> | uh, 2227u yes |
| 22:32 | <MarkK> | 2227u: yes |
| 22:32 | <freeside> | 2227u: yes |
| 22:33 | * | grumpy waits for someone who knows UTC to vote |
| 22:33 | <grumpy> | ;-) |
| 22:33 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 22:33 | <Julian> | grumpy: I'm +0200, so it's easy for me. :) |
| 22:33 | <csm-laptop> | does that conclude the ED "report/debacle/inflamatory session for the week" ? :-) |
| 22:34 | <Julian> | Heh. |
| 22:34 | <grumpy> | Uh, are we still on item 1? |
| 22:34 | <Julian> | grumpy: No, #3. |
| 22:34 | <csm-laptop> | we were doing the ED's report when you cam in |
| 22:34 | <freeside> | just you guys wait until i start blathering about RSS/email. |
| 22:34 | <freeside> | but we should start talking about the website |
| 22:34 | <Julian> | freeside: No, thanks. ;-) |
| 22:34 | <csm-laptop> | augh |
| 22:34 | <csm-laptop> | okay... |
| 22:34 | <freeside> | order, order, somebody bang a gavel or something |
| 22:35 | <csm-laptop> | next item... the council election period |
| 22:35 | <Julian> | 4. Council election period: |
| 22:35 | <Julian> | 4.1. Discussion. |
| 22:35 | <Julian> | 4.2. Motion: The council election period shall be one year. (Julian) |
| 22:35 | <Julian> | We're at 4.1. |
| 22:35 | <Julian> | Any comments? |
| 22:36 | <grumpy> | I said I would resign after 6 months, but that was with the assumption that I would have done more on the SPF spec than I have. |
| 22:36 | <MarkK> | I am all for the 1 year |
| 22:36 | <Julian> | grumpy: I'd highly appreciate it if you stayed with us for a bit longer. |
| 22:36 | <MarkK> | me too: :) |
| 22:36 | <csm-laptop> | we might actually accomplish something within a year... |
| 22:36 | <grumpy> | I think it would be appropriate |
| 22:36 | <Julian> | I really hope so. |
| 22:36 | <csm-laptop> | note I said "might" |
| 22:37 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: don't depress me. |
| 22:37 | <grumpy> | ;-) |
| 22:37 | <Julian> | All this political nonsense has been a great waste of time. |
| 22:37 | <Julian> | But I think it couldn't have been avoided. |
| 22:38 | * | grumpy continues to read the scroll back |
| 22:38 | <Julian> | freeside: Any comments from you? |
| 22:38 | <Julian> | (on the council election period issue) |
| 22:38 | <freeside> | 1 year sounds good |
| 22:38 | <Julian> | So let's move to 4.2.: |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | Motion: The council election period shall be one year. |
| 22:39 | <csm-laptop> | any further discussion? |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | Oops, sorry. |
| 22:39 | <csm-laptop> | hearing none... |
| 22:39 | <grumpy> | 2239u seconded |
| 22:39 | <MarkK> | 2239u: seconded |
| 22:39 | <csm-laptop> | votes? |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | 2239u: yes |
| 22:39 | <MarkK> | 2239u: yes |
| 22:39 | <grumpy> | 2239u yea |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | freeside? |
| 22:39 | <Julian> | csm-laptop? |
| 22:39 | * | Julian would like all council members to vote on that. |
| 22:40 | <MarkK> | guys?? |
| 22:40 | <freeside> | yea |
| 22:40 | <csm-laptop> | the chair votes yea |
| 22:40 | <csm-laptop> | so ordered |
| 22:40 | <Julian> | Unanimous. Thank you. |
| 22:41 | <MarkK> | next, please :) |
| 22:42 | <csm-laptop> | spf-announce operations |
| 22:42 | <freeside> | yeah, sorry i've been dropping the ball on that. |
| 22:42 | <freeside> | can somebody please add the council to the moderators list |
| 22:42 | <Julian> | freeside: That would be very nice. |
| 22:42 | <freeside> | but before we send out the press release, let's send out a ping message telling everyone to expect mail |
| 22:42 | <grumpy> | freeside: is that something I can do? |
| 22:42 | <freeside> | a lot of people signed up a long time ago and have forgotten. |
| 22:43 | <Julian> | freeside: What do you have in mind? |
| 22:43 | <freeside> | if you have admin access to listbox you should be able to leap into that list. |
| 22:43 | <freeside> | grumpy, try logging in and trying it |
| 22:43 | <Julian> | "People, wake up, two press releases from the SPF crowed are following!"? |
| 22:43 | <freeside> | something like that |
| 22:44 | <Julian> | Uhm, really? |
| 22:44 | <freeside> | and we should have a narrative voice messge, not just a PR |
| 22:44 | <freeside> | like, hey, here's what we've been up to in the last two years |
| 22:44 | * | Julian is confused. |
| 22:44 | <Julian> | Hmm, I see. |
| 22:44 | <freeside> | grumpy used to write those messages |
| 22:44 | <grumpy> | yeah, and I dropped the ball on those. |
| 22:44 | <grumpy> | sorry. |
| 22:44 | <freeside> | like, "so, MARID happened, and adoption now looks like this, and things are going well, blah blah" |
| 22:44 | <Julian> | I'd be happy if I don't have to write any more messages at the moment. |
| 22:45 | <Julian> | So, grumpy, go for it! :-) |
| 22:45 | <Julian> | grumpy: Can you do that within the next one or two weeks? |
| 22:45 | <grumpy> | re: SPF adoption: one month ago, I first broke 2Million lookups on the T-FWL. Last week I first broke 3M. Today I'm at 3.75M |
| 22:46 | <Julian> | Wow! Great news. |
| 22:46 | <MarkK> | yay! |
| 22:46 | <freeside> | that sounds like adoption is going up, rather than down |
| 22:46 | <grumpy> | I did say something to the effect htat "SPF is obviously dieing", but I was being my normal grumpy, sarcastic self. |
| 22:46 | <freeside> | that or grumpy's getting DDOSed, haha |
| 22:47 | <grumpy> | No, if someone wanted to DDoS me, I would be dead... |
| 22:47 | <Julian> | grumpy: Ssssh! |
| 22:47 | * | Julian won't put that into the minutes. |
| 22:47 | <freeside> | btw, can we have a vote on whether HHGTTG is worth watching, or have not enough council members seen it? |
| 22:47 | <grumpy> | BUT MY SECONDARIES WOULDN'T BE AND THEY HAVE SURVIVED SPEWS DDOS ATTACKS!!!!!! |
| 22:47 | * | Julian hasn't seen HHGTTG. |
| 22:47 | <freeside> | er, i will have to go in a few minutes. |
| 22:47 | <grumpy> | freeside: haven't seen it... |
| 22:47 | <freeside> | oh well, maybe next meeting. |
| 22:48 | <grumpy> | what about the website and the draft? |
| 22:48 | <grumpy> | freeside: we need your input about both of those |
| 22:48 | <Julian> | So, grumpy, can you get posting access to spf-announce for spf-council@moongroup.com? |
| 22:48 | <grumpy> | Julian: I'm trying, but I'm doing too many things at once |
| 22:48 | * | Julian too. |
| 22:49 | <freeside> | for the website, i just want something i can rsync, worst comes to worst |
| 22:49 | <freeside> | dsflkjasl;kfjlk;sdfj |
| 22:49 | <freeside> | if not let's go set up a dev site someplace that has mason support |
| 22:49 | <freeside> | can someone research hosting providers who support mod_perl and mason? |
| 22:49 | <freeside> | i'll pay the monthly, i just want to make sure we all have access to it and then i'll just suck down whatever's there. |
| 22:49 | <Julian> | freeside: Hold on. |
| 22:49 | <freeside> | we can get that up and running in the next couple weeks while we work out a more permanent CMS solution. |
| 22:50 | <MarkK> | within those who offered? or in the wide world? |
| 22:50 | <Julian> | For the long-term solution, we probably need a chroot or UML or vserver. |
| 22:50 | <grumpy> | Julian: you are now a moderator on spf-announce, I think. |
| 22:50 | <Julian> | For the interim, another solution may be ok. |
| 22:50 | <grumpy> | I couldn't find csm's email address on it. I'll do the rest later |
| 22:50 | <Julian> | grumpy: _me_? |
| 22:50 | <MarkK> | vservers are pricey |
| 22:51 | <Julian> | MarkK: Why is that? I mean a vserver, similar to a user-mode-linux virtual machine. Not a separate, real machine. |
| 22:51 | <grumpy> | vservers from Godaddy are pretty cheap. $35/mo |
| 22:51 | <grumpy> | for *LOTS* of bandwidth/disk space |
| 22:51 | <Julian> | We have offers from Shevek. |
| 22:52 | <grumpy> | yeah, and those I think are real machines |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | A UML VM would suffice, even a chroot would. |
| 22:52 | <MarkK> | I know; but good hosting plans cost $50 or so per months (or more with root-access) |
| 22:52 | * | Julian is not talking about real machines. |
| 22:52 | * | MarkK is neither |
| 22:52 | <csm-laptop> | I can get a vserver fairly cheap |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | Shevek offered one for naught. |
| 22:52 | <MarkK> | I am thinking FreeBSD 'jailed' vservers type thingies |
| 22:52 | <freeside> | optimize for convenience, not price |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | MarkK: Me too. |
| 22:53 | <csm-laptop> | guys... I can get us a vserver that is all ours... |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | Look, let's handle the website technical stuff another time. |
| 22:53 | <csm-laptop> | root... fresh install... build it the way we want it... etc |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | Can we please tend to _this_: |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | 6. Press Releases on spf-announce? (Julian) |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | 6.1. Motion: Push the 1st press release[1] through spf-announce. |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | 6.2. Motion: Push the 2nd press release[2] through spf-announce. |
| 22:53 | <grumpy> | anyway, what I get out of this is that pobox isn't the place to have the dev machine |
| 22:53 | <csm-laptop> | we don't need a motion for that |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | We don't? |
| 22:53 | <grumpy> | Julian: you can now post to spf-discuss |
| 22:53 | <csm-laptop> | those press releases are intended for *WIDE* distribution |
| 22:54 | <Julian> | I know. I had gotten the impression we might need motions. |
| 22:54 | <grumpy> | I don't think so... |
| 22:54 | <csm-laptop> | nope... get access and bang away |
| 22:54 | <Julian> | grumpy: You mean spf-announce. |
| 22:54 | <grumpy> | Uh, yeah |
| 22:54 | <csm-laptop> | grumpy: check PM |
| 22:54 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: ? |
| 22:54 | <Julian> | I know we don't _formally_ need motions, but technically. Meng seemed reluctant to push the PRs through. |
| 22:54 | <freeside> | brb in 10 minutes |
| 22:55 | <freeside> | that was just me being lazy and also the dependencies |
| 22:55 | <freeside> | had to write the "hi, wake up" message, and i didn't do that |
| 22:55 | <freeside> | sorry |
| 22:55 | <freeside> | brb |
| 22:55 | <Julian> | grumpy: You said you made me moderator of spf-announce. Which of my addresses did you use? |
| 22:56 | <grumpy> | Uh.... |
| 22:56 | <Julian> | Also, will I get a notification message with my list password? |
| 22:56 | <MarkK> | meanwhhile, I cou;ld research a suitable vserver thing for us |
| 22:56 | <grumpy> | julian@mehnle.net |
| 22:56 | <Julian> | grumpy: Ok. |
| 22:56 | <grumpy> | MarkK: are you subscribed to spf-announce? |
| 22:56 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 22:56 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: I meant it about getting one reasonably priced |
| 22:57 | <csm-laptop> | though it would be Linux based |
| 22:57 | <MarkK> | just give me an estimate; below $50? |
| 22:57 | <Julian> | Who is going to word a "what happened during the last (two) year(s)" message to be sent through spf-announce? Please don't make me do it. |
| 22:57 | <MarkK> | you mean for free, csm? |
| 22:57 | <grumpy> | Julian: I'll give it a try |
| 22:57 | <csm-laptop> | yes... $50 or less |
| 22:57 | <Julian> | grumpy: Great, thanks. Will you send it through spf-announce yourself? |
| 22:58 | <grumpy> | Julian: yeah |
| 22:58 | <grumpy> | I think we can get donated machines |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | Ok. If you want us to review it, post it to spf-council@... |
| 22:58 | <csm-laptop> | grumpy: I wanna see what you draft for that |
| 22:58 | <grumpy> | I have a P-II 330MHz laptop that could be used |
| 22:58 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: I'll send stuff to spf-council first |
| 22:58 | <MarkK> | csm: the machine are one thing; it is the bandwidth that really matters |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | grumpy: I'll send the 2 PRs as soon as I've seen the "what happened so far" message on spf-announce. |
| 22:59 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: this is both |
| 22:59 | <csm-laptop> | hang on... |
| 22:59 | <grumpy> | MarkK: for a dev machine, do we really need that much? |
| 22:59 | <MarkK> | cool :) |
| 22:59 | <MarkK> | not for dev, no |
| 22:59 | <Julian> | Re Website: I thought Meng wanted to offer one of his machine(s) to host the site? (He hasn't talked about a chroot or UML or vserver so far, but perhaps we can provide that, too...) |
| 23:00 | <grumpy> | Julian: I thought Meng said he could do the *production* site |
| 23:00 | <grumpy> | and use rsync to update it from the dev site |
| 23:00 | <Julian> | Look guys, can we discuss the website stuff on spf-council or spf-discuss? |
| 23:00 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 23:00 | <MarkK> | ok |
| 23:00 | <Julian> | Can we please proceed with the agenda? |
| 23:01 | * | Julian patiently waits for csm-laptop. |
| 23:01 | <MarkK> | it being 1 AM and all :) |
| 23:02 | <Julian> | Yeah. |
| 23:02 | <grumpy> | re: spf-announce moderation: to the best of my knowledge, all of the council members are now moderators on spf-announce. |
| 23:02 | <csm-laptop> | $20 per month and we plug the provider! |
| 23:02 | <grumpy> | you can try logging into your account on listbox.com and see |
| 23:02 | <Julian> | grumpy: Individually, or through spf-council@moongroup.com? |
| 23:02 | <grumpy> | Julian: individually |
| 23:03 | <Julian> | grumpy: Ok, I'll try later. |
| 23:03 | <MarkK> | thanks |
| 23:04 | <Julian> | grumpy: Re the weird "a"s in my message: I think you're seeing UTF-8 artifacts. The message should be intact. |
| 23:05 | <grumpy> | Ok, so where are we in this meeting? |
| 23:05 | <csm-laptop> | MarkK: check PM for an example config |
| 23:05 | <csm-laptop> | SPF draft is next |
| 23:05 | <csm-laptop> | SPF draft is next |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | 7. The SPF specification draft and the IETF: |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | 7.1. Status report and discussion. |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | 7.2. "SHOULD" PermError be treated as "None"? |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | 7.3. Other items? |
| 23:05 | <grumpy> | but freeside isn't back |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | We're at 7.1. |
| 23:06 | <grumpy> | I'll go ahead with 7.1, unless someone objects |
| 23:06 | <Julian> | Please do. |
| 23:06 | <grumpy> | as I'm sure all of you know, last week I release a new revision to spf-discuss |
| 23:06 | <grumpy> | part of what I said is that any final disputes about the draft should be resolved by the council |
| 23:07 | <grumpy> | that is, I don't have a veto over anything. |
| 23:07 | <grumpy> | So far, only one person has requested a clarification |
| 23:07 | <grumpy> | I also have not received very many reviews |
| 23:07 | <Julian> | I need to review the recent changes. |
| 23:07 | <Julian> | I'll do that today (Thu). |
| 23:07 | <grumpy> | Frank has sent a partial one, but I'm expecting some from freeside, Julian, and hopefully everyone else on the council. |
| 23:08 | <grumpy> | and others who have done reviews in the past, like William and Stephan |
| 23:08 | <MarkK> | are we on 7.1 still? |
| 23:08 | <grumpy> | yeah |
| 23:08 | <MarkK> | I will go over the whole thing too |
| 23:08 | <grumpy> | Right now, I'm not sure that the draft is read to go to the IETF again. |
| 23:08 | <Julian> | grumpy: Please explain. |
| 23:09 | <Julian> | Is that because the IETF obviously misunderstands the draft's purpose? |
| 23:09 | <grumpy> | there are some details with reguards to things like what should happen when an NXDOMAIN is found and what should happen on a PermError that need to be resolved |
| 23:09 | <Julian> | Yeah. |
| 23:09 | <MarkK> | that is at 7.2 :) |
| 23:09 | <grumpy> | there are differences that were made in MARID that I'm didn't fully realize and may need to be fixed |
| 23:09 | <MarkK> | and indeed rather important |
| 23:09 | <grumpy> | MarkK: not entirely |
| 23:10 | <grumpy> | 7.2 is *one* example of things that have come up in the last day or two. |
| 23:10 | * | Julian needs to catch up on spf-discuss first. I was busy revolutionizing my e-mail environment during the past few days. |
| 23:10 | <grumpy> | as far as the IESG not understanding the draft, yeah, I've had a letter on my todo list for a while now. |
| 23:11 | <grumpy> | Ok, any questions about 7.1, the status of the draft? |
| 23:11 | <grumpy> | (e.g., I'm done giving my report) |
| 23:11 | <Julian> | grumpy: What are your immediate plans after you received our reviews? |
| 23:11 | <Julian> | ...plans regarding the draft, I mean. |
| 23:12 | <grumpy> | I will add the stuff that I think is appropriate and reply to spf-discuss with the stuff that I have left out |
| 23:12 | <grumpy> | anything that I don't think is appropriate that you (or anyone else) feels strongly about should be taken up with the council. |
| 23:12 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 23:13 | <grumpy> | In the case of you and I, we can cancel out our votes and let freeside MarkK and csm-laptop vote... ;-) |
| 23:13 | <Julian> | grumpy: Are you going to contact the IETF before submitting -01? |
| 23:13 | <grumpy> | I'm not sure. |
| 23:13 | <Julian> | (grumpy: Huh? Why would we cancel out our votes?) |
| 23:13 | <grumpy> | initially I was thinking "no" |
| 23:14 | <grumpy> | (Julian if you say "do foo" and I say "don't do foo", and you bring it to the council to resolve, you will vote one way and I'll vote the other.) |
| 23:14 | <Julian> | (Oh, that you meant.) |
| 23:14 | <grumpy> | but, I'm thinking that due to the lack of reviews and agreement on key issues, that maybe we should wait a week |
| 23:14 | <grumpy> | to submit the draft to the IETF |
| 23:15 | <grumpy> | if that is the case, I'll contact the IEFT tonight. |
| 23:15 | <grumpy> | or tomorrow, after I send a draft to spf-council |
| 23:15 | <csm-laptop> | I think you should start talking to them about their expectations yesterday! |
| 23:15 | <Julian> | I mean, look at what we discussed earlier this meeting. Should we contact the IETF about the draft's general purpose? |
| 23:15 | <Julian> | csm-laptop: I agree. |
| 23:16 | <grumpy> | Well, freeside suggested (and I thought we voted on) a simple "hey Ted/Scott, what's up?" message |
| 23:16 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 23:16 | <grumpy> | I think we can wait for a longer "this is our expectation" letter until after we hear what they have to say. |
| 23:17 | <Julian> | Yeah. |
| 23:17 | <grumpy> | So, does that finish up 7.1 "discussion and report"? |
| 23:17 | <MarkK> | grumpy: just a "what's up guys" suffices, imho |
| 23:17 | <grumpy> | MarkK: yes, I agree. |
| 23:17 | * | Julian has no further questions. |
| 23:18 | <grumpy> | Ok, as far as 7.2, I think it would be a real bad idea to vote on it w/o freeside here. |
| 23:18 | <csm-laptop> | well I think we should defer any further conversation 'til next meeting |
| 23:18 | <grumpy> | I agree |
| 23:18 | <grumpy> | can we have another meeting next week? |
| 23:18 | <Julian> | The goal of this document is to clearly document the protocol defined |
| 23:18 | <Julian> | by earlier drafts specifications of SPF as used in existing |
| 23:18 | <Julian> | implementations. |
| 23:18 | <MarkK> | darn; and I really thought 7.2 was important |
| 23:19 | <Julian> | (The IETF guys should read the above quote from the spec.) |
| 23:19 | <grumpy> | MarkK: agreed, but I think it is important enough that doing anything with it w/o meng is a mistake |
| 23:19 | <grumpy> | Julian: they did. Or, at least, some of them did. |
| 23:19 | <MarkK> | grumpy: agreed |
| 23:19 | <grumpy> | what I *don't* think they realize is that spf-classic is not marid-protocol. |
| 23:19 | <Julian> | Yes. |
| 23:20 | <grumpy> | even though it is being used as such. |
| 23:20 | <Julian> | Apparently. |
| 23:20 | * | Julian is fine with postponing the tech stuff to the next meeting. |
| 23:20 | <grumpy> | 7.3 "other items" |
| 23:21 | <grumpy> | are we there yet? |
| 23:21 | <MarkK> | can we have the next meeting soonish then? |
| 23:21 | <Julian> | csm-laptop: Can we advance to 7.3 or 8? |
| 23:21 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I agree, I asked for a meeting next week, if possible. |
| 23:21 | <MarkK> | good :) |
| 23:21 | <grumpy> | we have stuff to decide |
| 23:22 | <grumpy> | csm-laptop: ? |
| 23:22 | <csm-laptop> | next week then? |
| 23:22 | <Julian> | Uh, not so fast. |
| 23:22 | <grumpy> | yeah |
| 23:22 | <grumpy> | uh |
| 23:22 | <csm-laptop> | guys it's late for you... and I have stuff to do |
| 23:22 | <csm-laptop> | 2+ hours is enough |
| 23:22 | <Julian> | Can we advance to 7.3 or 8? |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | After that, we can adjourn. |
| 23:23 | <csm-laptop> | no... we can defer any remaining business and discussion until the next meeting |
| 23:23 | * | grumpy agrees with Julian |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | 7. The SPF specification draft and the IETF: |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | 7.1. Status report and discussion. |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | 7.2. "SHOULD" PermError be treated as "None"? |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | 7.3. Other items? |
| 23:23 | <Julian> | 8. Other items? |
| 23:23 | <csm-laptop> | make a motion if you have a motion to make |
| 23:23 | <csm-laptop> | 7.3 |
| 23:23 | <csm-laptop> | ? |
| 23:23 | <grumpy> | I have no other items |
| 23:24 | * | Julian neither. |
| 23:24 | <MarkK> | grumpy: I will go over the draft and offer any sensible comments I can make :) |
| 23:24 | <grumpy> | MarkK: thanks |
| 23:24 | <csm-laptop> | I have nothing further |
| 23:24 | <csm-laptop> | shall we adjourn? |
| 23:24 | <grumpy> | seconded |
| 23:24 | <Julian> | 2324u: seconded |
| 23:24 | <csm-laptop> | opposed? |
| 23:24 | <grumpy> | 2324u yea |
| 23:24 | <MarkK> | 2324u: yes |
| 23:24 | <Julian> | 2324u: yes |
| 23:24 | <grumpy> | thanks for the meeting, sorry I was late showing up |
| 23:25 | <csm-laptop> | no opposition... we are adjourned |
| 23:25 | <csm-laptop> | night guys |
| 23:25 | <MarkK> | night all |
| 23:25 | <grumpy> | logs *SHOULD* be posted in 30min, if I haven't messed things up |
| 23:25 | <Julian> | Man. |
| 23:26 | <Julian> | Expect a draft review from me within the next 24h. |
| 23:26 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 23:30 | <Julian> | The weird "a"s in my message are UTF-8ish for Latin-1 0xA0 (non-breaking space). |
| 23:35 | <Julian> | Dunno why it didn't use normal spaces instead. But whatever... |
| 23:39 | <grumpy> | As long as it wasn't some sort of important notation, I'm not worried. |