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/2005/07/19_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| gconnor | Greg Connor |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| --- Tue Jul 19 00:00:22 UTC 2005 --- | ||
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | Then we don't delay that long. |
| 00:00 | <Julian> | Ok, anyone who wants to contact MS before we do an appeal, speak up now and explain what you plan to tell them. |
| 00:00 | <Julian> | Otherwise, I move that we just do the appeal right away. |
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | I would be willing to contact MS and I would send the email to spf-council first. |
| 00:01 | <grumpy> | and what I would say is basically what I've said above. |
| 00:01 | <Julian> | How long do you suggest we wait for a constructive response? |
| 00:01 | <grumpy> | no more than a week. |
| 00:01 | <Julian> | Method of contact? |
| 00:01 | <MarkK> | I think freeside is still a very good candidate in speaking with them |
| 00:01 | <Julian> | I agree. |
| 00:01 | <grumpy> | Harry gave me his business card. |
| 00:01 | <freeside> | i think grumpy is also a very good candidate. |
| 00:02 | <freeside> | i've already done my speaking with them, it's grumpy's turn. |
| 00:02 | * | grumpy checks to see if he sent the logs to the right mailing lists... |
| 00:02 | <Julian> | grumpy: What logs? |
| 00:02 | <grumpy> | see your email. it is 00:00 UTC and the #spf-council IRC logs just got sent to spf-council |
| 00:02 | <grumpy> | *AT v2.listbox.com* this time. ;-) |
| 00:03 | <grumpy> | Ok, is there more that we should discuss on this issue? |
| 00:03 | <grumpy> | or should we move forward to 8) how to deal with the IETF? |
| 00:04 | <gconnor> | freeside and I both have the same problem: we both believe there's some potential advantage to reusing v=spf1, so for my part I probably wouldn't be the best one to try and talk them out of it. grumpy has the best combination of "feels like the issue needs a compromise" and "has had a positive interaction with MS before" |
| 00:04 | <freeside> | grumpy, did you add subscribers to the listbox spf-council list? i didn't fully add all the subs. |
| 00:04 | <grumpy> | freeside: yeah, I took care of that. |
| 00:04 | <freeside> | ok, thanks. |
| 00:04 | <grumpy> | we still need to try and get the archives moved. |
| 00:05 | <Julian> | grumpy: One more thing. |
| 00:05 | <freeside> | just so you guys know, i'm on vacation until the 31st, so my access is going to be spotty. |
| 00:05 | <Julian> | Please (B)CC all mail traffic between you and MS to spf-private. |
| 00:05 | <grumpy> | Julian: will do. |
| 00:06 | <grumpy> | as I said, I would bounce the email off of spf-council first, but I guess spf-private is also an option. |
| 00:06 | <grumpy> | Julian: was that all you had on this subject? |
| 00:06 | <Julian> | Sorry, I'm really sick of MS's inertia. I hope we can get something out of this, but I'm tired of getting delayed, even if it is unintended by MS. |
| 00:06 | <Julian> | Yeah, that's all. |
| 00:06 | <grumpy> | anyone who wants to continue item 7), please type .. quickly |
| 00:07 | <gconnor> | should we talk about what to do if they don't respond? |
| 00:07 | <gconnor> | is that in 8. category? |
| 00:07 | <Julian> | gconnor: Let's discuss that in 7 days. |
| 00:07 | <freeside> | <foreshadowing> if you want the IETF to tell MS to not reuse v=spf1, i think we won't succeed. |
| 00:07 | <grumpy> | next up: item 8: how to deal with the IETF? |
| 00:07 | <Julian> | freeside: No, that's not the point. MS probably won't listen even to the IETF. |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | freeside: you also said that you thought the IESG wanted the re-use and wouldn't give us an I-D unless we allowed it. |
| 00:08 | <freeside> | word. |
| 00:08 | <Julian> | MS has already shown their hubris with regard to listening to the IETF. They have been told not to re-use v=spf1. They ignored it. |
| 00:08 | <gconnor> | As far as ietf goes, both our proposals (spf and sid) are "experimental", correct? |
| 00:08 | <MarkK> | I still find the IETF position very awkward |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | yep |
| 00:08 | <gconnor> | We do have prior art, but this is not copyright law :) |
| 00:09 | <grumpy> | MarkK: you mean crouching down slow low that they try to avoid all the shit being flung around? |
| 00:09 | <Julian> | Prior art has nothing to do with copyright law, has it? |
| 00:09 | <gconnor> | Or patent law, I mean. :) |
| 00:10 | <grumpy> | anyone want to bet on whether DKIM gets standard track? |
| 00:10 | <gconnor> | I thought it was rare to get standards track unless you are a WG |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | They just got another BoF scheduled and it looks like they may bet a WG. |
| 00:11 | <gconnor> | nice |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | but, actually, standard track RFCs happen all the time w/o being in a WG. |
| 00:11 | <Julian> | Are we on-topic? |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | no, not really |
| 00:11 | <Julian> | Ok, then I'm free to say that I think that DKIM is the wrong solution. |
| 00:11 | <MarkK> | grumpy: I mean they should have flat-out have refused MS to offer a proposal that uses the records defined by a 'competing' proposal. |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | other than "what to do about the IETF" requires us to understand the IETF... |
| 00:12 | <Julian> | People don't communicate with domains, but with other people. The world needs PGP. |
| 00:12 | <gconnor> | was the agenda item about "what to do with SPF's ietf proposal"? At first I thought it was an extension of 7. pra-related |
| 00:12 | <grumpy> | MarkK: but the IETF doesn't want to refuse MS. |
| 00:12 | <MarkK> | grumpy: exactly; and in doing so, they made a mockery of themselves |
| 00:13 | <Julian> | MarkK: Agreed. |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | they undermined thewir own authority |
| 00:13 | <Julian> | If the IETF isn't about doing things "the right way", then they are obsolete. |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | and had it been anyone else but MS, they *would* have told them |
| 00:13 | <grumpy> | Well, I think freeside is right in this particular case. The IETF won't do anything more than they have already done. |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | grumpy: so where does that leave us? |
| 00:14 | <Julian> | grumpy: Very possible. So let's give them another chance at ridiculing themselves. |
| 00:14 | <grumpy> | the fact that they are allowing us to publish the SPF I-D with the "not recommended" paragraph is somewhat surprising. |
| 00:14 | <freeside> | at some point we have to accept the situation and move on. |
| 00:14 | <Julian> | Agreed. |
| 00:14 | <grumpy> | Well, Frank says that I should *not* be the one to handle the appeal. |
| 00:15 | <Julian> | So, can we adjourn? Item 8 obviously cannot be discussed before 2005-07-25. |
| 00:15 | <grumpy> | So, if someone else wants to take on the task of planning out the appeal, than I won't object. |
| 00:15 | <Julian> | grumpy: Why should you not be the one doing the appeal? If _everyone_ can make the appeal, why hasn't Frank done it already? |
| 00:15 | <MarkK> | I must confess I am unfamiliar with IETF appeal procedures; which does not mean I cannot look into them, of course. |
| 00:16 | <grumpy> | Frank says that he has already made one appealthis year so he won't make another. |
| 00:16 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I'm pretty ignorant also. |
| 00:16 | <grumpy> | Frank posted a good bunch ofpointers, including a directory of all previous appeals. |
| 00:16 | <grumpy> | I get the impression that appeals are rare. |
| 00:16 | <Julian> | grumpy: I think you should be the one making the appeal, because you are the main author of draft-schlitt-spf-classic. |
| 00:16 | <MarkK> | we could use that as a base |
| 00:17 | <grumpy> | I think my time would be more productively used elsewhere. |
| 00:17 | <Julian> | Ugh. |
| 00:17 | <Julian> | I think this issue is important. |
| 00:17 | <MarkK> | I see no reason for wayne not to appeal, except it means yet more work for him |
| 00:17 | <grumpy> | looks like we have a volunteer! |
| 00:17 | <grumpy> | thanks Julian! |
| 00:17 | <grumpy> | ;-) |
| 00:17 | <Julian> | grumpy: Does that mean that you think the appeal is not important? |
| 00:18 | <gconnor> | If it needs to be sent from the Council as an official action, then we all need to review it, but someone else could do the actual writing |
| 00:18 | * | Julian really would like to get an honest answer to his question. |
| 00:18 | <freeside> | at this point i wouldn't vote in favour of an appeal. |
| 00:18 | <Julian> | I could have guessed as much. :-) |
| 00:18 | <grumpy> | Julian: I think that an IETF appeal would be less productive than me working on the test suite, getting the domains transfered, fixing up libspf2, working on SRS/SES stuff, etc. |
| 00:19 | <Julian> | grumpy: Ok, I think that's a clear answer. Thanks. |
| 00:19 | <freeside> | i wonder if this would be a good time to install tiger. |
| 00:19 | <gconnor> | I would have to see the text, but I probably would abstain rather than vote in favor of an appeal. |
| 00:19 | <MarkK> | In all honesty, the grinding of my teeth despite, I too fear the IETF thing is a done deal |
| 00:19 | <grumpy> | As much as I would enjoy seeing the IETF try and twist their way out of being a political organization ratherthan an engineering organization, I'm not sure that it would be very useful. |
| 00:20 | <freeside> | all organizations are political :) |
| 00:20 | <freeside> | i have to go guys. |
| 00:20 | <grumpy> | "tiger"? |
| 00:20 | <freeside> | actually, no,this is why i have two laptops. |
| 00:20 | * | freeside ungoes. |
| 00:21 | <grumpy> | freeside: yeah, but the IETF makes a big deal about how they are an *engineering* organization that makes *technical* decisions. |
| 00:21 | <grumpy> | it is a farce. |
| 00:21 | <MarkK> | grumpy: they really showed their true face this time |
| 00:21 | <grumpy> | yes, agreed. |
| 00:22 | <grumpy> | and, really, I would have a lot of fun making them squirm. It just wouldn't be very productive. |
| 00:22 | <Julian> | Ok, let's see where everyone stands. |
| 00:23 | <Julian> | Motion: Someone should prepare an appeal to the IETF in case we cannot get MS to stop re-using v=spf1 records for PRA checking. The appeal shall be submitted to the IETF if there are no clear indications that MS is willing to open serious discussions about this within 7 days. Julian will prepare the appeal it if nobody else will. |
| 00:24 | <grumpy> | 00:23u seconded |
| 00:24 | <grumpy> | discussion? |
| 00:24 | <MarkK> | yes; how do we get them to discuss things? |
| 00:24 | <MarkK> | will we contact them again? |
| 00:24 | <Julian> | grumpy already said he would contact them. |
| 00:25 | <grumpy> | "them" == "MS", right? |
| 00:25 | <Julian> | Of course. |
| 00:25 | <MarkK> | ok, thanks |
| 00:25 | <grumpy> | not the IETF... |
| 00:25 | <MarkK> | grumpy: yes |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | Ok, any other discussion? |
| 00:26 | <Julian> | Can we vote now? |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | if so, type ... quickly. |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | ok... |
| 00:26 | <gconnor> | I'm abstaining from this one. I don't see anything wrong with preparing an appeal... there is always a chance I may change my mind when I see the text of the appeal. |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | votes? |
| 00:26 | <Julian> | 0023u: yes |
| 00:26 | <gconnor> | 0023u: abstain |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | MarkK? freeside? |
| 00:27 | <MarkK> | 0023u: yes (for all the good it will do) |
| 00:27 | <grumpy> | freeside? |
| 00:28 | <grumpy> | hmmm... |
| 00:28 | * | grumpy sighs |
| 00:28 | <freeside> | 0023u: abstain |
| 00:28 | <Julian> | I guess we can safely assume freeside's vote an abstention. |
| 00:28 | <Julian> | Oh. |
| 00:28 | <grumpy> | 0023u yes |
| 00:28 | <grumpy> | motion carries |
| 00:28 | <grumpy> | (I think) |
| 00:28 | <freeside> | good assumption :) |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | Uh, three yes votes, yeah, that carries. |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | Ok, anything else we should discuss? |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | you know the routine, type ... quickly... |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | motion: adjourn |
| 00:29 | <Julian> | Ok. So grumpy contacts MS as discussed, and in 7 days, we'll see what happens.- |
| 00:29 | <Julian> | 0029u: seconded |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | votes? |
| 00:29 | <MarkK> | 0029u: yes |
| 00:29 | <Julian> | 0029u: yes |
| 00:30 | <gconnor> | 0029u: yes |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | motion carried. |
| 00:30 | <freeside> | 0029u: yes |
| 00:30 | <freeside> | woot |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | thanks for the good meeting guys! |
| 00:30 | <Julian> | s/good/lengthy/ |
| 00:30 | <MarkK> | next time, we really should consider an earlier time |
| 00:30 | <gconnor> | Thanks all. |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | I'll post the logs in a few minutes. |
| 00:30 | <MarkK> | 2.30 AM is really late :) |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | I can imagine. |
| 00:30 | <Julian> | Anyway, I'm going to comment on the logs of the informal session now. |
| 00:30 | <gconnor> | woohoo, I get to go home and eat now |
| 00:30 | <MarkK> | but yes, it was productive |
| 00:31 | <grumpy> | freeside: please pick out a time for the next meeting, I think you are the criticalpath. |
| 00:31 | <Julian> | No, it was _not_ very productive. |
| 00:31 | <MarkK> | thanks, gconner |
| 00:31 | <Julian> | We did produce a few results, but it took much too long for that. |
| 00:31 | <grumpy> | Well, I don't think we had any clear answers. |
| 00:31 | <Julian> | However, I see why we took that long. |
| 00:32 | <grumpy> | we didn't last week on these subjects either. |
| 00:32 | <MarkK> | julian: true; but the issues are (remain) complicated, in terms of finding the right answer |
| 00:32 | <Julian> | It's all understandable. But please let's not pretend it was very productive. It wasn't. |
| 00:32 | <gconnor> | Well, with "MS" on the agenda, I expected not much of the time would be on actual SPF itself |
| 00:33 | <grumpy> | Julian: should I have run the meeting differently? |
| 00:33 | <MarkK> | gconner: expect it to be on there for a while :) |
| 00:33 | * | grumpy is new to this "chair"thing... |
| 00:33 | * | grumpy needs to get his space bar fixed. |
| 00:33 | <Julian> | grumpy: I think it was mostly ok. A bit more stringency would have been in order, perhaps. We have been discussing in circles. |
| 00:34 | <MarkK> | grumpy: I think there was a time we lingered a bit too much, but other than that, I think (unsolicited) you did fine. :) |
| 00:34 | <gconnor> | Seconded :) |
| 00:35 | <grumpy> | We actually didn't get to items 7/8 until after an hour into the meeting. |
| 00:35 | <Julian> | Blame Meng. ;-) |
| 00:35 | <Julian> | But Meng's on vacation, so I guess it is ok. |
| 00:35 | <grumpy> | no, blame canada! |
| 00:35 | <gconnor> | This being my first time I wasn't actually sure whether to hold my comments or to discuss as the mood strikes, so I did a bit of both |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | I think discuss when the mood strikes is what we mostly do. |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | there can be a lot of overlap between typing and reading. |
| 00:36 | <gconnor> | Noted |
| 00:36 | <freeside> | and boy, do those moods ever struke |
| 00:36 | <freeside> | er, strike |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | heh |
| 00:36 | <gconnor> | OK I think I will sign off. Thanks everyone |
| 00:37 | <freeside> | nite |
| 00:37 | <grumpy> | logs will be posted in 10 minutes. |
| 00:38 | <Julian> | I pity the poor guy who has to write the minutes for all these endless discussion-in-circles meetings. |
| 00:39 | <MarkK> | not really;you just write one paragraph, and add "x10" in the margin :) |
| 00:40 | <grumpy> | Julian: yeah, I fee sorry for that guy also. ;-) |
| 00:40 | <MarkK> | I think I will sign off now, too; goodnight. |
| 00:40 | <grumpy> | especially when he keeps taking on new projects. ;-) |
| 00:41 | <grumpy> | we need to hire a bunch more full time people to work on SPF. |