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/2005/06/10_irc_log.html.

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

--- Thu Jun 9 17:17:03 UTC 2005 ---
17:17<grumpy>from the #spf channel:
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> I got a response from the RFC-editor....
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> see spf-council Any Second Now
17:17<grumpy><Julian> I think the RFC editor misunderstood why you CC'ed him. :-)
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> No, actually I don't think so.
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> The "RFC submission process" webpage conflicts with RFC2026
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> the webpage says that they will only accept Experimental and Informational I-Ds
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> I'm not going to argue the point. If the RFC editor has accepted the I-D and started the standard track process, fine.
17:17<grumpy><Julian> (Should we repeat and continue this conversation on #spf-council?)
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> If not, it gave me a good excuse to review stuff for the IESG.
17:17<grumpy><grumpy> Oh, I suspose
17:17<grumpy>why do you think the RFC editor misunderstood?
17:18<Julian>Well, if all standards track documents must go through the IESG, then why did you include the RFC editor in the recipients of your -02 submission mail?
17:20<grumpy>as I mentioned above, by including the RFC-editor, either way we come out ahead.
17:21<grumpy>and it wasn't at all clear that the webpage is authoratative over RFC2026. They may be just discouraging RFC-editor submissions.
17:21<grumpy>Or, maybe the RFC-editor should review the I-D before bothering the IESG.
17:21<Julian>I see.
17:22<grumpy>no matter what, I knew it would have to go through the IESG. I just wasn't certain of the correct procedure
17:22<grumpy>and, as I said, including the RFC-editor gave a good excuse to review the I-D history for the IESG.
17:23*grumpy doesn't expect all 13+ IESG members to remember all of the outstanding I-Ds
17:24<Julian>:-)
17:24<Julian>BTW, I created some system user groups on earbone: spf, spf-webmasters, spf-council. I added you and me to all three.
17:25<grumpy>basically, this email is not a surprise, and by the RFC-editor saying "the IESG will respond", it saves me from having to prod the IESG myself.
17:25<Julian>Oops.
17:25<grumpy>wrong button?
17:25<Julian>(pressed Ctrl+W)
17:25<Julian>(= delete preceding word in vi)
17:25<grumpy>what is the group spf for?
17:26<Julian>I was just going to explain.
17:26*grumpy used to hit C-P in MSDos windows all the time, trying to get the previous command.
17:26<Julian>Group spf: all general SPF stuff, such as a potential Subversion repo etc.
17:27<Julian>Groups spf-webmasters, spf-council: should be obvious.
17:27<grumpy>yeah....
17:27<Julian>Those three groups are for files that shouldn't be generally accessible to all SPF-related users of the system.
17:28<Julian>I also created /home/spf, chown root:spf, chmod g+ws.
17:28<grumpy>btw, I'm working on why the why.html page doesn't work
17:29<Julian>I also created /srv/www/spf-temp for the temp website for Meng to replicate.
17:29<Julian>We can move the stuff from /var/www there later.
17:30<Julian>I'm now going to set up Apache 2.
17:30<grumpy>ok
17:30<grumpy>some of the stuff in the A1 http.conf file is needed to make Mason work
17:31<Julian>I'll have a look at it.
17:32<grumpy>spf.pobox.com uses A1, so there *may* be bugs that are triggered by A2.
17:32<grumpy>keep your eye out for them.
17:33<Julian>Will do.
23:29<Julian>It would be great if we could have a meeting with Meng next week. Meng, please suggest a date and time on the spf-council mailing list. Wednesday would be ok for me.

This report was generated at Fri Jun 10 00:00:00 UTC 2005.