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/2005/06/15_irc_log.html.

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

--- Tue Jun 14 23:31:44 UTC 2005 ---
23:31<Julian>I hope I manage to write at least one bunch of the outstanding meeting minutes before tomorrow's meeting. Also, I hope to get the backup system for the website host working before next Monday.
--- Wed Jun 15 19:56:12 UTC 2005 ---
19:56<Julian>T = -64min
20:18<freeside>moo
20:18<Julian>freeside: Great, you're here!
20:39<freeside>moo.
20:40<grumpy>t - 20min
20:49<freeside>t-10m
20:51<grumpy>I sent email to MarkK asking if it was possible for him to show up today, but I never got a response back.
20:52<grumpy>He may well be completely without Internet access until he gets back to NL
20:52<freeside>mmm
20:52<Julian>I won't be able to attend much longer than 23:00 UTC, and no longer than 23:30 UTC in _any_ case.
20:53<Julian>So please let's keep discussions concise and well-structured.
20:54<grumpy>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
20:55<Julian>Well, we could at least try, ok?
20:59<grumpy>sure
20:59<grumpy>ok, should we wait at all for MarkK to show up?
20:59<grumpy>or should we just assume he will follow his word and not be able to make it?
20:59<grumpy>csm-laptop: you here?
21:00*grumpy looks around for csm...
21:00<grumpy>he is teaching this week, but I thought he was going to be able to make it.
21:00<Julian>Mark probably isn't going to make it.
21:00<Julian>csm-laptop: ping
21:01<freeside>t-0
21:01<grumpy>t+1 even
21:01<Julian>Let's wait for Chuck, but not for Mark.
21:01<grumpy>ok
21:01<grumpy>wait(csm-laptop)
21:02<csm-laptop>ahem
21:02<csm-laptop>meeting will come to order
21:02<csm-laptop>1st item is approval of the previous minutes
21:02<csm-laptop>Julian ?
21:02<Julian>None.
21:02<Julian>Sorry.
21:02<csm-laptop>next item is me
21:02<Julian>Other things have been more important, such as the website...
21:02<csm-laptop>I have a few comments
21:03<csm-laptop>1. Meng... you and I need to have a telephone conversation soon... would you have time tomorrow evening?
21:03<freeside>let me see
21:04<freeside>mmm, probably not
21:04<freeside>saturday might work.
21:05<csm-laptop>okay... when is good for you?
21:05<csm-laptop>saturday?
21:05<csm-laptop>if it's evening I can do it
21:05<csm-laptop>let me check
21:06<freeside>saturday evening should be fine, let's find a time offline.
21:07<csm-laptop>okay... how about 7pm on saturday
21:07<csm-laptop>alright...
21:07<csm-laptop>here's the thing
21:07<freeside>should be ok.
21:07<csm-laptop>so much stuff has gone wrong with this project at the leadership level that you and I need to talk...
21:08<csm-laptop>I know you talked to Wayne and that's cool... but some stuff is happening that we can put a stop to I think
21:08<freeside>ok
21:09<csm-laptop>no matter how many ways we try to slice it... SPf is much like an OSS coding project and it's leaders need the active support of it's community to make it go
21:10<csm-laptop>so I think if we can talk about this we can maybe stop all the problems we've been having and head off any hurt feelings... anger... etc/
21:10<csm-laptop>etc.
21:10<csm-laptop>oh
21:11<csm-laptop>please email me your phone #... I do not have it in my cell
21:11<freeside>ok
21:11<csm-laptop>my next comment is about the current stuff going on with the IESG/IETF
21:12<Julian>I do have some questions to Meng about this, too. But I'll wait until it's my turn.
21:12<csm-laptop>I would like to have a brief discussion here with the rest of you leadership guys about why we cannot seem to make our reasoning clear about the differences between 2822 and 2821 ID's
21:12<csm-laptop>it was said quite clearly earlier today...
21:12<csm-laptop>let me find and paste the quote
21:13<csm-laptop>"someone needs to point out to Ted Hardie that v=spf1 was *never* up for consideration by MARID. MARID was specific to 2822 headers,a nd v=spf1 is only 2821"
21:13<csm-laptop>I invite comments and discussion from the rest of you... Meng... would you like to start?
21:14<freeside>i think those kinds of comments have been pointed out to ted hardie already, and he's taken that into consideration.
21:14<csm-laptop>really?
21:15<freeside>yeah, i'm pretty sure he's aware of that point of view.
21:15<csm-laptop>how is it we still find ourselves subordinate to the corpse of MARID?
21:15<csm-laptop>are we wrong?
21:15<Julian>Ted's most recent comment on this was:
21:15<Julian>"Again, I've not passed this by the IESG, but I believe that the IETF did not see consensus emerge from MARID. The efforts to take an existing syntax and layer new semantics on top was a compromise that did not garner sufficient agreement to be the basis of a standard. Had that worked, or some other consensus position emerged, we would be publishing a working group-derived standard, not experimental RFCs."
21:15<csm-laptop>or worse... incorrect?
21:16<grumpy>Yeah, I read that from Ted... I don't quite understand it.
21:17<csm-laptop>I am just flat confused
21:17<csm-laptop>why are we continuing to get short shrift?
21:17<csm-laptop>Meng I figure you know those guys better than any of the rest of us...
21:17<Julian>So, as I see it, Ted and/or the IESG chose to publish "everything" (including SPFv1) with "experimental" status _because_ they want to keep that braindead "compromise" and "see whether it works in reality". Not because they thing that SPF or Sender-ID are experimental in themselves.
21:17<grumpy>isn't "taking existing syntax and layer new semantics on top" what senderid-core is doing?
21:18<freeside>i think their attitude is to just publish "all of the above" and let the market work it out
21:18<Julian>grumpy: Yeah, that's exactly what Ted means.
21:18<freeside>so, if our goal is to get spf-classic documented in an rfc, i suggest we take advantage of that, and submit it to them in whatever form they're willing to publish.
21:19<Julian>freeside: The thing is, the market approach might even work if there wasn't such a lot of propaganda saying that "Sender-ID using v=spf1" was absolutely ok and by design.
21:19<grumpy>it is my understanding that hey are willing to publish spf-classic-02 in its current form, just not until SID is ready
21:19<grumpy>and "SID supercedes SPF"
21:21<grumpy>Ok, so if Ted understands that SID is new semantics on an old syntax, why isn't he willing to adopt the MARID WG requirement that it use a new version number?
21:21<Julian>A very good question.
21:21<Julian>freeside: Do you have any answer to that?
21:21<grumpy>s/answer/guess/
21:21<freeside>nope, i don't know
21:22<grumpy>freeside: do you understand why the IESG wants to delay the publication of spf-classic-02?
21:22*grumpy doesn't understand
21:22<freeside>nope, i don't know why ... you've been talking to ted, i haven't talked to ted about this
21:23<Julian>Meng, I gather you agree with Ted's position, right?
21:23<freeside>i don't know what ted's position is. i haven't been following the exchanges besides what happened a couple weeks back with grumpy and ted
21:23<freeside>and even there i'm not sure i understand what ted's position is
21:23<grumpy>freeside: yeah, I have been talking with Ted, but I have been known to miss the obvious some times.
21:23<Julian>freeside: You haven't talked to the IESG recently?
21:23<freeside>nope.
21:23<grumpy>hmmm.
21:23<grumpy>ted said you had.
21:24<freeside>any recent communication i've had with those guys is second hand.
21:24<grumpy>interesting.
21:24<freeside>what did ted say?
21:24*grumpy digs
21:24<Julian>"If you would prefer, however, we are prepared to consider a resurrected draft-lentczner-spf in its place. I have confirmed with Mark and Meng that their draft was prepared for that role and that they are prepared to resubmit it if required."
21:24<freeside>over the last few months i've basically been taking a low-key role in hopes that it would all sort itself out without my involvement.
21:25<Julian>That's what Ted wrote on 06-13.
21:25*grumpy notes that Julian is faster that grumpy
21:25<grumpy>and I find that strange, because to the best of my knowledge, MarkL never wrote lentczner-spf-00 to be that role.
21:25<Julian>So Meng's and Ted's statements are in obvious conflict.
21:25<freeside>ok, yes. so my position has always been, i think we should get an RFC out, and whether it documents spf-classic or marid-whatever is less important, because the market will just say "ok, it's an RFC number" and not look that much farther.
21:26<freeside>so mark contacted me and said that ted had asked him to resubmit the doc.
21:26<Julian>freeside: I hope you realize people aren't going to buy SPF just because it's called "SPF". It needs to work, too.
21:26<freeside>he asked if i had any objection, and i said no, go ahead.
21:26<grumpy>hmmm
21:26<freeside>this was in the understanding that spf-classic was being submitted independently by wayne
21:26<freeside>that was my understanding, at least
21:26<grumpy>hmmm...
21:26<grumpy>ok
21:27<freeside>and my understanding was that the ietf was more likely to approve everything at once, so submitting the original lentczner-00 draft would help the spf-classic get approved
21:27<freeside>because i thought the iesg wanted to just approve them all at the same time as experimentals
21:27<grumpy>but lentczner-00 and schlitt-spf-classic-02 conflict in certain areas.
21:27<freeside>so when mark asked me if i had any objection to resubmitting the draft, i said, no, go ahead.
21:28<grumpy>interesting.
21:28<Julian>"this was in the understanding that spf-classic was being submitted independently by wayne" -- This doesn't seem to work since the IESG considers all drafts to be MARID drafts. Oh, wait, it seems to work with Sender-ID and SPF-classic, too, so why not with SPF-classic and SPF-MarkL?
21:28<grumpy>Ok, well I have emailed MarkL a couple of times now, and never received a reply.
21:28<freeside>the iesg wants a number of experimental rfcs to be published, right? i don't think anyboyd would be surprised if the drafts conflicted with each other. that's the whole point of letting the market decide.
21:29<Julian>freeside: No.
21:29<grumpy>conflicting specs for the same records is BAD engineering.
21:29<grumpy>I *am* surprised that the IESG is considering allowing conflicting specs.
21:29<Julian>You can't let the market decide on whether Sender-ID or SPFv1 should be allowed to use v=spf1 records. This is just going to result in a very big mess.
21:29<csm-laptop>which brings us right back to my original question
21:30*grumpy scrolls back
21:30<freeside>i don't see how any one of us can tell the market what to do, especially when microsoft is part of that market.
21:30<csm-laptop>when will people in the IESG understand that 2821 and v=spf1 has nothing to do with SID?
21:30<Julian>Hey, let's just use NS RRs for SPF. Doesn't matter if it conflicts, the market will decide.</sarcasm>
21:30<freeside>ultimately, people are going to use spf records in whatever way works for them.
21:31<Julian>Without interoperability being guaranteed, the entire experiment is bound to crash.
21:31<Julian>Perhaps that's what some people want.
21:31<csm-laptop>fresside: this is where you can really help us
21:31<csm-laptop>really, really
21:31<csm-laptop>and yourself as well
21:31<csm-laptop>when we say "ultimately, people are going to use spf records in whatever way works for them." as you just did
21:31<csm-laptop>who are those people?
21:32<csm-laptop>Ted keeps ignoring the fact that v=spf1 is for the domain owners!
21:32<freeside>antispam, mta, mua vendors.
21:32<freeside>the people doing the checking.
21:32<csm-laptop>okay
21:32<csm-laptop>but dude
21:32<csm-laptop>the publishers have an intent when they publish
21:32<grumpy>an intent that doesn't work with all identities
21:32<csm-laptop>mixing 2822 usage and 2821 usage is *NOT* in that intent
21:33<grumpy>you could check the domains in message-ids also, but that would give bogus results...
21:33<csm-laptop>and this is where Ted just shuts his eyes
21:33<Julian>Too much politics in the IESG.
21:34<freeside>well, it sounds to me like if we want the IESG to publish our draft, we have to accommodate the IESG.
21:34<Julian>I thought the "E" in IESG was for "engineering".
21:34*grumpy smiles
21:34<Julian>No, I don't agree to that.
21:34<csm-laptop>our draft has an intent... they don't get to skew it do they?
21:35<Julian>I'd prefer an intact draft-schlitt-spf-classic over having an RFC.
21:35<csm-laptop>well Meng....
21:35<csm-laptop>I think you could make them understand
21:36<csm-laptop>they seem to listen to you
21:36<csm-laptop>engage them
21:36<grumpy>well, I think we will get an intact RFC, but we may not be able to get the IESG to change senderid-core
21:36<freeside>regarding the reuse of v=spf1, i don't think they'll listen to me any more than they'll listen to anyone else on here.
21:36<grumpy>you are a draft author
21:37<grumpy>you can just resubmit the I-D with the change
21:37<grumpy>are you saying they won't let you?
21:37<csm-laptop>well since it's the publishers intent that matters we need to try to make them understand
21:37<Julian>grumpy: What I-D?
21:37<grumpy>senderid-core
21:37<Julian>k
21:38<csm-laptop>Meng will you engage them on this topic?
21:38<csm-laptop>you know the issue as well as anyone...
21:38<csm-laptop>probably better
21:38<csm-laptop>please
21:38<freeside>i'll try to have a conversation with ted hardie and see what he thinks.
21:38<grumpy>freeside: can't you just change the draft?
21:38<Julian>That would be good. And tell him he isn't supposed to write that he had checked back with you if he hasn't.
21:38<freeside>but frankly, it seems to me that the IESG will be much quicker to approve a draft that allows for reuse.
21:39<freeside>well, he did check with me, via mark.
21:39<freeside>i told mark i had no problem with it.
21:39<grumpy>yeah, I guess that was kind of second hand.
21:39<grumpy>but acceptable.
21:39<csm-laptop>but the problem is reuse presumes the publisher had the 2822 use as his intent
21:39<Julian>"the IESG will be much quicker to approve a draft that allows for reuse" -- Maybe. If the IESG would be _even_ quicker if we submitted a 0-page draft, should we do it?
21:39<csm-laptop>and I do *NOT* think they do
21:39<freeside>frankly, at this point i think the overall utility of getting a draft published sooner, that allows reuse, is higher than the utility of not getting a draft published, or getting it published months or years later, that prohibits reuse.
21:40<csm-laptop>eh?
21:40<csm-laptop>so we ignore the publishers intent?
21:40<freeside>if we keep trying to prohibit reuse, the drafts will just keep getting held off. if we allow reuse, the drafts will go through. that is my feeling.
21:40<csm-laptop>but the prohibition is not politics...
21:40<Julian>The SPF draft _has_ been published, just not by the IETF.
21:40<grumpy>so we should ignore technical problems?
21:40<csm-laptop>it's fscking engineering
21:40<csm-laptop>damn
21:41<freeside>yes, and engineering is about making tradeoffs.
21:41<Julian>freeside: "if we keep trying to prohibit reuse, the drafts will just keep getting held off" -- Can I quote you on that?
21:41<freeside>i think this is a tradeoff that's worth making.
21:41<grumpy>hmmm
21:41<csm-laptop>okay... who tells the 1,000,000 plus domain owners who published that the record use is going to change?
21:41<Julian>Microsoft.
21:42<freeside>i don't think we should worry about reuse, especially when DKIM will come along and solve the 2822 problem more properly than doing sender ID on PRA.
21:42<freeside>in the long run i see people doing a combination of spf on the return-path and helo, and dk on the headers and data.
21:42<csm-laptop>okay...
21:42<csm-laptop>that gibes with my own point of view
21:42<grumpy>yeah, but SID is going to make "v=spf1" records unreliable
21:42<freeside>so prohibiting the PRA / SenderID part is really not worth fighting over, when it will go away on its own.
21:43<csm-laptop>so how do we get out of the "experimental" queue and into the RFC queue?
21:43<freeside>and the damage of not having an RFC is greater than the damage of allowing a reuse.
21:43<Julian>freeside: It's far from certain that it will go away on its own.
21:43<freeside>the best way to get it out of the experimental queue is to get it into the experimental queue first :)
21:43<csm-laptop>okay
21:44<csm-laptop>well some time ago I said that I really did not give a crap what SID did anyway
21:44<csm-laptop>so long as we were not told we couldn't use v=spf1 the way we wanted
21:44<csm-laptop>so where are we then?
21:45<Julian>We're "Experimental".
21:45<csm-laptop>still stuck under MARID's corpse?
21:45<grumpy>apparently
21:45<csm-laptop>what is our actual status?
21:45<grumpy>spf-classic is still waiting to get enough votes to pass
21:46<grumpy>it has more votes than the sid drafts, but it is still a couple short
21:46<csm-laptop>for "experimental" status?
21:46<Julian>If you ask me, I highly doubt draft-schlitt-spf-classic as it is will never leave experimental status.
21:46<Julian>s/never/ever/
21:46<grumpy>Julian: why not?
21:46<Julian>grumpy: Because the IESG, as it is now, will prevent it.
21:46*grumpy doesn't disagree, but wants to know the reasons
21:46<Julian>I'm just observing reality.
21:47<grumpy>ok
21:47<grumpy>yeah, I can agree with that.
21:47<Julian>...and extrapolating a bit.
21:47<csm-laptop>what kinds of comments have there been?
21:47<grumpy>although I think that maybe in a few years, it might be able to move forward.
21:47<grumpy>csm-laptop: you mean from the IESG?
21:48<Julian>"in a few years", everyone will be using PGP and S/MIME, hopefully.
21:48<grumpy>not much, other than I've corrected some of the things that put a hold on it before
21:48<csm-laptop>yeah... I am wondering if any of those oh so very gifted people had said anything particularly illuminating?
21:48<grumpy>and ted has changed his vote to discuss, although he promised to change that back.
21:48<csm-laptop>s/people/politicians/g
21:48<Julian>s/people/engineering experts/g
21:48<grumpy>csm-laptop: they review a *lot* of I-Ds every week.
21:49<grumpy>they are not supposed to do tech reviews.
21:49<grumpy>at least in theory.
21:49<csm-laptop>yeah well maybe we should explain that to Ted?
21:49<grumpy>they very often do, but that is a problem they are trying to solve.
21:49<Julian>(Ok, so where is this discussion leading us to?)
21:49<grumpy>yeah
21:49<csm-laptop>well I think where it's lead is this
21:49<csm-laptop>1.
21:50<csm-laptop>we now have a better idea what happened with the MarkL-SPF draft
21:50<csm-laptop>and why Ted made the comments that he made
21:50<csm-laptop>that is good to know and it clears up a big point that pissed some people off
21:50<csm-laptop>2.
21:50<csm-laptop>we've covered reuse a bit more...
21:50<csm-laptop>together
21:50<csm-laptop>and heard some views
21:51<csm-laptop>from a tactical view point...
21:51<csm-laptop>our reuse argument *REALLY* needs to focus
21:51<csm-laptop>around the intent of the publishers
21:51<csm-laptop>and that should be our message
21:51<csm-laptop>3.
21:51<csm-laptop>Meng has said he will engage with Ted and the IESG a bit and that cannot hurt us!
21:52<csm-laptop>anything else?:
21:52<grumpy>Yeah, let me quote from an RFC
21:53<grumpy>RFC 3932 IESG and RFC Editor Documents: Procedures October 2004
21:53<grumpy>5. Examples of Cases Where Publication Is Harmful
21:53<grumpy>This section gives a couple of examples where delaying or preventing
21:53<grumpy>publication of a document might be appropriate due to conflict with
21:53<grumpy>IETF work. It forms part of the background material, not a part of
21:53<grumpy>the procedure.
21:53<grumpy>[...]
21:53<grumpy>Example: Photuris (RFC 2522), which was published after IKE (RFC
21:53<grumpy>2409).
21:53<grumpy>Inappropriate Reuse of "free" Bits: In 2003, a proposal for an
21:53<grumpy>experimental RFC was published that wanted to reuse the high bits of
21:53<grumpy>the "fragment offset" part of the IP header for another purpose. No
21:53<grumpy>IANA consideration says how these bits can be repurposed, but the
21:53<grumpy>standard defines a specific meaning for them. The IESG concluded
21:53<grumpy>that implementations of this experiment risked causing hard-to-debug
21:53<grumpy>interoperability problems and recommended not publishing the document
21:53<grumpy>in the RFC series. The RFC Editor accepted the recommendation.
21:53<grumpy>--
21:53<grumpy>sorry for the large quote.
21:53<grumpy>it should end with the line "The RFC Editor accepted the recommendation"
21:54<grumpy>this is *very* similar to the conflicting use of v=spf1 records
21:54<grumpy>I will send the IESG a note explaining this further.
21:54<grumpy>I did make a reference to it in my "confusions" post
21:54<csm-laptop>when you do...
21:55<csm-laptop>focus on the fact that reuse implies that the reusers know what the publisher's intent was
21:55<csm-laptop>they don't
21:55<csm-laptop>so they cannot hope to do it right
21:55<Julian>grumpy: Good point.
21:56<csm-laptop>okay
21:56<grumpy>freeside: why can't SID have something like a "spf2.0/pra redirect-spfv1=%{d}" to indicate that the reuse is ok?
21:56<grumpy>or "spf2.0/pra redirect=%{d}/spfv1"
21:57<grumpy>doesn't this allow the re-use under a technically correct method?
21:57<csm-laptop>freeside?
21:57<freeside>mmm
21:58<csm-laptop>grumpy asked you a direct ?
21:58<freeside>sure, that could work, but i don't think that's what MS and the IESG want.
21:58<grumpy>ok
21:58<csm-laptop>wait?
21:58<csm-laptop>what do they want?
21:58<grumpy>well, that was also in my "confusion" post.
21:58<freeside>i'm really suggesting that the most important thing right now, tactically, is to get an rfc published.
21:59<freeside>they want to be able to reuse it, and you don't want reuse, and so there's not much point to continued discussion.
21:59<freeside>the IESG is going to have to arbitrate.
21:59<grumpy>ok, does the IESG want to reuse?
21:59<freeside>i think so.
21:59<grumpy>Hmmmm.
21:59<grumpy>Ok.
21:59<csm-laptop>why?
21:59<grumpy>well, instead of making freeside guess what the IESG thinks, I think we should just ask the IESG.
21:59<freeside>i could be wrong, but that seems to be consistent with what ted's been outputting, no?
22:00<grumpy>it isn't consistent with what sam has said
22:00<freeside>well, i think grumpy is right.
22:00<freeside>i saw a great fortune cookie the other day: "ignorance never settled any questions."
22:00<grumpy>of course, sam isn't the shepherding AD
22:00<grumpy>ok
22:00<grumpy>well, I will write a letter to the IESG
22:00<grumpy>and we have learned several things
22:00<csm-laptop>freeside: since you started the whole M$ thing I really think you should ask them or support Wayne while he does
22:01<grumpy>but I think we are getting to the end
22:01<grumpy>freeside: would you support the removal of the re-use from senderid-core if that was ok with the IESG?
22:02<freeside>at this point, i would prefer to defer all decisions on that issue to the IESG.
22:02<grumpy>ok
22:02<csm-laptop>WHAT?
22:03<csm-laptop>wait a minute
22:03<csm-laptop>who's writing the ID's here... the IESG now?
22:03<freeside>i'm not interested in taking sides now, i have my own feelings about what i think is right, but ultimately i think the most important thing is getting an rfc out, and the iesg controls that.
22:04*csm-laptop pounds head against the table
22:04<grumpy>ok folks
22:04<grumpy>I don't think we are making progress
22:04<grumpy>Julian siad he had to leave now
22:04<grumpy>and I want to cover the website and mailing list issues.
22:04<Julian>grumpy: No. Only in an hour.
22:04<Julian>(23:00 UTC, 23:30 at the very latest.)
22:04<grumpy>ok
22:04*grumpy is confused
22:04<csm-laptop>well I will have to go before that
22:05*csm-laptop is confused
22:05<freeside>let's table the reuse issue for now and talk abotu the website
22:05<csm-laptop>okay
22:05<csm-laptop>next item is ED's report
22:05<grumpy>Uh, we are only on item 3?
22:06<csm-laptop>yes....
22:06<csm-laptop>what we were just discussing was my issue
22:06<grumpy>ok, freeside... In case you missed it, we have started useing the convension of typing "..." when we are composing a long response
22:06<freeside>...
22:06<grumpy>so that we aren't in a deadlock
22:07<csm-laptop>...
22:07<csm-laptop>:-)
22:07<freeside>ED's report. two weeks ago i was promoting sender authentication at inboxevent.com. next week i'll be at maawg where hopefully julian and i and anyone else can get together. the week after that i'll be at yapc talking about spf again and giving an update on karma. after that i will be at a BOF at OSCON and at the july 12 authentication summit in new york.
22:07<freeside>that's pretty much my conference update for now.
22:08<Julian>SPF@YAPC? Interesting.
22:08<Julian>M:S:Q is a mess.
22:08<freeside>i'll also be giving a lightning talk on RSS/Email, which is an interesting take on IM2000 that Andy Newton first brought to my attention. http://mengwong.com/rssemail/
22:08<freeside>M:S:Q has been handed over to Shevek who will be at MAAWG as well so maybe we should discuss it there.
22:09<csm-laptop>more?
22:09<freeside>...
22:09<freeside>so, additionally, i want to apologize for being a big slacker over the last six months, and officially announce my intention to get more involved again in day to day operations of spf, on the mailing list, and on the irc channel.
22:09<Julian>freeside: Huh? There are already plans within the SPF community to rewrite M:S:Q... ??
22:09<freeside>okay, well, fine.
22:10<freeside>my consulting contract with earthlink just ended, so i should have a little more time to work on SPF now.
22:10<csm-laptop>muahahahahaha
22:10<Julian>We really should meet at the MAAWG.
22:10<freeside>aren't we on the sender authentication panel?
22:11<freeside>okay, done with the report.
22:11<freeside>let's move on to the website?
22:11<Julian>freeside: Yes, we are.
22:11<Julian>Hold on.
22:11<Julian>freeside: We're supposed to give a presentation on SPF and possibly SRS, right? So we need to coordinate.
22:12<freeside>i think it would be really cool if we could, at maawg, pass around a pledge sheet asking for $25,000 to $50,000 to help cover the cost of implementing Cheeseplate including SRS and maybe even DK
22:12<freeside>$25k to $50k per pledger.
22:12<Julian>To be honest, I think there may be some conflicts between our positions, but most of them aren't going to be on-topic at the panel. Anyway, we should clarify those conflicts between ourselves and about how to resolve them wrt the panel.
22:12<freeside>there are some big ISPs.
22:12<freeside>okay, let's discuss our panel appearance offline, since there's nothing for the council to vote on.
22:13<csm-laptop>more?
22:13<Julian>freeside: Yes, indeed. But we're going to coordinate, are we?
22:13<Julian>Hold on.
22:13<freeside>ITYM, --more--
22:13<Julian>"ITYM"?
22:13<freeside>I Think You Mean
22:13<freeside>yes, we'll coordinate.
22:14<Julian>freeside: How and when? I'll arrive in Dusseldorf on the 20th, we could meet that day. But I'd prefer coordinating in advance through e-mail.
22:14<freeside>ok, let's coordinate in advance through email.
22:14<Julian>Ok, expect a message from me tomorrow.
22:14<grumpy>are we done with item 3?
22:14<csm-laptop>??
22:15<Julian>freeside: I'll CC our correspondence to spf-council.
22:15<csm-laptop>augh
22:15<Julian>Yes, I'm done.
22:15<csm-laptop>is the web site next?
22:15<grumpy>uh, mailing lists
22:15<freeside>mailing lists are next.
22:15<csm-laptop>oh
22:15<csm-laptop>k
22:15<Julian>Stop.
22:15<freeside>you guys should have full admin access to the mailing lists.
22:15<csm-laptop>go
22:15<Julian>3.999 is next.
22:15<grumpy>oh, right
22:15<csm-laptop>augh
22:15*grumpy put 3.999 after 4.
22:15<Julian>It's just a quick vote.
22:15*grumpy can't count
22:16<freeside>which agenda are we looking at?
22:16<freeside>*** Topic for #spf-council: Today's meeting agenda: http://moongroup.com/pipermail/spf-council/2005-May/000289.html
22:16<csm-laptop>The council can decide to delegate tasks to persons who are not
22:16<csm-laptop>| council members. The council defines the delegate's competencies.
22:16<csm-laptop>| If a delegate is in doubt about their competencies, they shall
22:16<csm-laptop>| consult the council. In situations that require prompt action by
22:16<csm-laptop>| the delegate, any single council member can provisionally issue a
22:16<csm-laptop>| clarification, which has to be finally approved by the council.
22:16<grumpy>Julian added an item later
22:16<csm-laptop>| A delegate remains in their position until they choose to resign
22:16<csm-laptop>| or the council chooses to modify the delegation.
22:16<csm-laptop>the above ia a motion
22:16<csm-laptop>is
22:16<Julian>Motion: Adopt the following resolution:
22:16<Julian>| Council Delegates
22:16<Julian>|
22:16<Julian>| The council can decide to delegate tasks to persons who are not
22:16<Julian>| council members. The council defines the delegate's competencies.
22:16<Julian>| If a delegate is in doubt about their competencies, they shall
22:16<grumpy>Julian: do you want to make that motion now?
22:16<Julian>| consult the council. In situations that require prompt action by
22:17<Julian>| the delegate, any single council member can provisionally issue a
22:17<Julian>| clarification, which has to be finally approved by the council.
22:17<Julian>| A delegate remains in their position until they choose to resign
22:17<Julian>| or the council chooses to modify the delegation.
22:17<Julian>--
22:17<Julian>Why not?
22:17<Julian>It's as generic as it gets.
22:17<grumpy>yeah
22:17<grumpy>uh, csm posted it once
22:17*csm-laptop thinks Julian was not reading the screen
22:17<grumpy>heh
22:17<grumpy>oh well
22:17<Julian>I read it, but Chuck's version was garbled.
22:17<grumpy>ok, 2217u: seconded
22:17<csm-laptop>was not
22:17<csm-laptop>:-)
22:17<grumpy>was too!!
22:17<csm-laptop>votes?
22:17<Julian>2217u: yes
22:18<grumpy>2217u yes
22:18<freeside>2217u: yes
22:18<csm-laptop>so ordered
22:18<Julian>Thanks.
22:18<csm-laptop>next item?
22:18<grumpy>mailing lists
22:18<csm-laptop>augh
22:18*grumpy hopes he gets it right this time
22:18<csm-laptop>we have full admin rights already?
22:18<grumpy>do we?
22:18<freeside>you should, yes
22:18<grumpy>on all the lists?
22:18<freeside>can we follow up with gconnor?
22:18<grumpy>what about spf-council and spf-private?
22:18<freeside>that's not listbox
22:19<Julian>Of course not.
22:19<grumpy>yeah, but they are still spf lists
22:19*freeside makes the international "deflecting the action point away from me" gesture.
22:19<grumpy>hehe
22:19<csm-laptop>what do you want with spf-council and spf-private?
22:19<csm-laptop>you already have admin rights
22:19<grumpy>also, if I recall correctly, we are not listed as "list owners" on the listbox ones
22:19*grumpy sends something back to freeside
22:19<freeside>let's ask gconnor to set that up
22:19<Julian>Chuck has always been mostly responsive wrt spf-council and spf-private.
22:19<freeside>i will get access, just can't do it now
22:20<csm-laptop>spf-oracle and spf-devel ?
22:20<freeside>spf-oracle cna be shut down
22:20<grumpy>csm-laptop: I can only approve messages to the spf-council and spf-private lists
22:20<grumpy>I can't see the queue or change any of the admin stuff
22:20<csm-laptop>grumpy: what else do you want?
22:20<freeside>anyway, any spf-* list that you don't have access to, file that as a bug report with me and let me know
22:20<freeside>be back in a few
22:21<csm-laptop>augh
22:21<grumpy>I want to be able to recreate the list if you get hit by a vegetable truck
22:21<grumpy>I don't want to depend on any one person
22:21<csm-laptop>that requires root with mailman
22:21<csm-laptop>you can't get at the names any other way
22:21<grumpy>Hmmmm...
22:21<grumpy>ok.
22:22<csm-laptop>at least not in a usable form
22:22<grumpy>is there any possiblity you could set up a cron job or something to mail them to at least one other council member?
22:22<csm-laptop>the addresses?
22:22<csm-laptop>for 5 people?
22:22<grumpy>well, all of the config
22:22<csm-laptop>you are kidding right?
22:22<Julian>grumpy: Yes, that would be good.
22:22<csm-laptop>the config?
22:22<grumpy>I'm assuming that spf-council has more than 5 subscribers
22:23<csm-laptop>you want the pickle file?
22:23<Julian>Mailman can export the config in a trivial manner.
22:23<csm-laptop>hmmm...
22:23<csm-laptop>you guys send me email about this...
22:23<Julian>Ok.
22:23<csm-laptop>I will do whatever
22:23*grumpy just doesn't like single points of failure.
22:23<csm-laptop>the config doesn't change anyhow
22:23<Julian>grumpy: You care about the Mailman configs, ok?
22:23<Julian>(and subscriber lists)
22:24<grumpy>sure, I can keep a copy of them.
22:24<csm-laptop>send me email
22:24<csm-laptop>we'll make it happen
22:24<grumpy>ok
22:24<csm-laptop>no motion required
22:24<csm-laptop>:-)
22:24<csm-laptop>next item?
22:24<grumpy>Uh, website.
22:24<Julian>Hold on.
22:24<grumpy>freeside: ?
22:24<csm-laptop>cripes
22:24<Julian>Currently, the SPF council does not have control over all of
22:24<Julian>these lists, and I'm not sure I agree with all of the
22:24<Julian>introductory text that the SPF-discuss has.
22:24<csm-laptop>I have veeeeeeeeeeeeery little time left
22:24<Julian>Have we handled the last part?
22:24<grumpy>no....
22:25<grumpy>is it ok for council members to change the intro text?
22:25<grumpy>I'm guessing "yes", but I want it on record
22:25<csm-laptop>he said we had full admin rights
22:25<Julian>That q goes to freeside, I think.
22:25<grumpy>(not vote needed)
22:25<grumpy>ok
22:25<Julian>So, can we continue?
22:26<csm-laptop><freeside> you guys should have full admin access to the mailing lists.
22:26<csm-laptop>do whatever IMHO
22:26<grumpy>ok
22:26<csm-laptop>guys I have to get out of here
22:26<freeside>yes, go ahead and change it.
22:26<Julian>Cool.
22:26<freeside>next, website?
22:26<csm-laptop>is there a motion that needs to be made about the web site?
22:26<grumpy>no, just discussion, I think
22:27<Julian>yep.
22:27<csm-laptop>okay
22:27<csm-laptop>well can we end the official meeting then?
22:27<grumpy>yeah, I guess
22:27<freeside>well, the website's been switched over to wayne
22:27<csm-laptop>in any event I have to go now
22:27<Julian>Motion: Adjourn.
22:27<freeside>as of a few minutes ago
22:27<freeside>woot
22:27<csm-laptop>votes?
22:27<Julian>2227u: yes
22:27<freeside>2227u: yes
22:27<grumpy>2227u yes
22:27<freeside>see you all next week in germany
22:27<grumpy>bibi csm
22:27<csm-laptop>motion carried
22:27<csm-laptop>ttul8r
22:27<grumpy>freeside: hang around
22:28<grumpy>we can talk about the website
22:28<Julian>Ok, let's keep discussing the website.
22:28<grumpy>since Julian is the key webadmin right now
22:28<grumpy>ok, what do you guys think about a copyright license?
22:28<Julian>Well, I know that there's http://dev.spf.pobox.com now.
22:29<Julian>freeside: Who has copyright on the current website contents and design?
22:29<grumpy>I think it would be cleaner if we had one...
22:29<freeside>ic group has the current copyright, but i think it would be really nice if we changed the design and contents
22:29<freeside>make it more readable and more useful, etc
22:29<Julian>(grumpy: Slow. Let's clarify the current copyright situation first.)
22:29<Julian>freeside: The content sure is going to change, at least in part, since much is outdated.
22:30<freeside>good, good.
22:30<Julian>Who's the "IC Group"?
22:30<Julian>URL?
22:30<freeside>pobox.com, listbox.com, etc.
22:30<Julian>Ok.
22:30<Julian>Can the IC Group license the contents and/or design under GFDL?
22:30<freeside>sure.
22:30<Julian>the _current_ contents, most notably?
22:31<freeside>sure.
22:31*grumpy monitors the new website
22:31<Julian>Ok, so we can start modifying the contents on the dev site and re-publish that under the GFDL.
22:32<freeside>sure.
22:32<grumpy>great
22:32<Julian>Now let's talk about the future copyright and license.
22:32<Julian>grumpy?
22:32<grumpy>Julian: do you think the GFDL is better than the CC?
22:32<Julian>grumpy: I think it has less problems than the GFDL, yes.
22:33<grumpy>ok... when I looked into it, that was my conclusion also
22:33<Julian>The Creative Commons has better PR, though. ;-)
22:33<grumpy>Well, wikipedia is pretty good pr
22:33<Julian>Yeah, ok.
22:33<grumpy>but we aren't publishing a book or anything
22:33<grumpy>we just need to make sure that we can continue on in case someone gets hit by a vegetable truck
22:34<grumpy>freeside: do you know anything about this stuff?
22:34<Julian>Ok, is there anything left to discuss on the copyright/license issue?
22:34<grumpy>what are your thoughts?
22:34<freeside>nope.
22:34<grumpy>ok
22:34<freeside>let's just keep doing whatever comes naturally.
22:34<grumpy>so, three blind mice are leading each other around.... ;-)
22:34<grumpy>*smack*
22:34<grumpy>there is a wall here!
22:35<freeside>okay, i have to go soon
22:35<Julian>I _do_ know a lot about licenses and copyright/patent issues.
22:35<freeside>anything else you guys need from me?
22:35<freeside>i will reconnect from home in a little bit.
22:35<grumpy>ok, let's see if the IC group will license the content under the GFDL
22:35<Julian>What about "spf.pobox.com CNAME spf.schlitt.net"?
22:35<grumpy>that has already been done
22:35<grumpy>a few minutes ago
22:35<grumpy>load average is now 0.00
22:35<Julian>Have I missed it??
22:35<grumpy>oh, wait, 0.02
22:36<Julian>I mean, I haven't checked, but I didn't read anything about this on #spf-council recently...
22:36<grumpy>freeside: mentioned it about 15 minutes ago here
22:36*grumpy scrolls back
22:36<Julian>timestamp?
22:36<grumpy><freeside> well, the website's been switched over to wayne
22:37<Julian>22:27 UTC: <freeside> well, the website's been switched over to wayne
22:37<grumpy>yeah
22:37<Julian>spf.pobox.com. 60 IN CNAME spf.schlitt.net.
22:37<Julian>spf.pobox.com. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 a -all"
22:37<Julian>Awesome!
22:37<grumpy>OOOOHHH!! the lavg is up to 0.08
22:37<Julian>freeside: Thanks a lot.
22:37<grumpy>yes, thanks freeside!
22:38<Julian>Now we're really making progress.
22:38<Julian>freeside: Before you go...
22:38<Julian>...when can we meet at the MAAWG conference? When do you arrive?
22:39<Julian>(He may already be on his way home... I'll wait.)
22:39<grumpy>you saw where freeside said he would re-connect in a little bit.
22:39<Julian>Yes.
22:39<grumpy>can you check the website and see if it is responding quickly to you?
22:39<grumpy>it response real quickly to me. ;-)
22:40<Julian>I think it's ok. No noticable delays.
22:40<grumpy>ok
22:40<grumpy>So, what should we do next?
22:40<Julian>BTW, I have almost got the backup system packaged as a Debian package.
22:40<grumpy>Ah
22:41<Julian>As soon as that's finished, we can install it on earbone.
22:41<grumpy>ok
22:41<Julian>Then we can see how large the generated backup archive is.
22:41<grumpy>I installed a bunch of stuff in /usr/local/sbin and /usr/local/bin this afternoon
22:41<Julian>I think just a few MB is realistic.
22:41<grumpy>do you use emacs?
22:41<Julian>What stuff?
22:42<Julian>No.
22:42<grumpy>ok
22:42<Julian>--> #spf
22:42<grumpy>well, I did some config on xemacs also.
22:42<Julian>That's not really council business, I guess.
22:42<grumpy>good point
23:03<Julian>So, has freeside disappeared?
23:07<Julian>So, has freeside disappeared?
23:11<Julian>freeside: ping
23:13<Julian>Well, RSS/Email seems to solve a few minor issues, which probably makes it worthwile. But it won't solve the spam problem.
23:13<Julian>Only accountability and reputation will.
23:15<Julian>I need to go soon.
23:17<grumpy>ok
23:23<Julian>22:35 UTC <freeside> i will reconnect from home in a little bit.
23:23<Julian>Uhm, right.
23:24<Julian>Anyway...
23:24<Julian>freeside: I look forward to doing some constructive work with you on the SAP panel presentation.
23:25<Julian>I'm off.
23:26<Julian>$self->detach_from_terminal();

This report was generated at Wed Jun 15 23:59:59 UTC 2005.