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.
| --- Tue Feb 7 12:55:54 UTC 2006 --- |
| 12:55 | <SDGathman> | I posted of summary of arguments to spf-discuss. |
| 12:58 | <MarkK> | good evening |
| 13:00 | <shew> | Good morning. :-) |
| 13:04 | <MarkK> | Are we still on? Weren't you up at 5 AM? |
| 13:05 | <willix> | I think we're waiting for Julian |
| 13:06 | <SDGathman> | My Dad gets up at 5am - so it didn't immediately register that computer types might find it distressing (I'm a night owl myself). Sorry. |
| 13:08 | <SDGathman> | Although my summary last night saw a "rough" concensus, It was missing a few posters. |
| 13:08 | <MarkK> | I'm sure he'll show up soon |
| 13:09 | <MarkK> | yeah, we got quite a hectic input there :) |
| 13:09 | <willix> | I was going to do summary too but did not get to it due to time |
| 13:09 | <willix> | at least one person emailed me privately and said he's for appeal |
| 13:11 | <MarkK> | hmm |
| 13:12 | <shew> | Are folks here wanting/expecting a discussion? (ie, would taking a poll for/against here while waiting for Julian be inappropriate?) |
| 13:13 | <willix> | FYI - Hector also emailed me and said he's for the appeal and not against |
| 13:14 | <MarkK> | I do not believe a whole lot of discussion was planned, no |
| 13:15 | <MarkK> | the chair should probably be here, though, before taking a vote |
| 13:15 | <SDGathman> | This is such a tricky issue, I hope posteriity cuts us some slack. |
| 13:15 | <MarkK> | yeah, it sure is a tough call |
| 13:22 | <SDGathman> | There is not an obvious concensus on spf-discuss either. |
| 13:22 | <SDGathman> | Very wise people on both sides. |
| 13:23 | <MarkK> | I'd hoped there would be; but alas |
| 13:23 | <SDGathman> | At least on mail issues. |
| 13:23 | <MarkK> | no clear cut, I'm afraid |
| 13:28 | <willix> | Can we have roll call on who is here please |
| 13:29 | <MarkK> | present |
| 13:29 | <shew> | present |
| 13:29 | <SDGathman> | present |
| 13:29 | <willix> | present |
| 13:30 | <willix> | We have quorum for council meeting |
| 13:30 | <SDGathman> | Julian indicated he would abstain anyway. |
| 13:30 | <willix> | We already know how Julian will vote, so I'd like to have the council meeting start now |
| 13:30 | <shew> | We could in fact also have an open-ended vote, posting results on spf-council and letting Julian make the final vote or abstention. |
| 13:31 | <willix> | yes |
| 13:31 | <shew> | Given that he said he'd be writing the appeal if it were voted for, that technical delay in the "final" answer isn't really a practical issue I don't think. |
| 13:31 | <SDGathman> | Who will be acting chairman? |
| 13:32 | <willix> | Mark, you want to do it, given you were interim chairman before? |
| 13:32 | <MarkK> | I could be |
| 13:32 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 13:32 | <MarkK> | Ok, I call this meeting to order |
| 13:32 | <shew> | I would prefer us to have a vote that would have 5 votes. |
| 13:32 | <shew> | (poorly worded) |
| 13:33 | <MarkK> | Only one agenda item: to appeal or not to appeal |
| 13:33 | <SDGathman> | Motion: cast four votes, post results to spf-council, let Julian add final vote and submit appeal if so decided. |
| 13:33 | <willix> | can we have small discussion before on if consensus exist |
| 13:33 | <MarkK> | sure |
| 13:34 | <shew> | okay. |
| 13:34 | <shew> | (I agree with the motion, btw.) |
| 13:34 | <SDGathman> | After corrections via email, my summary of spf-discuss is evenly divided. |
| 13:35 | <willix> | Who did you list as being for? |
| 13:35 | <willix> | And who against? |
| 13:35 | <SDGathman> | Let me bring it up... |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Pro: Mike (Dot Zero) |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Frank |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Mark Shewmaker |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Terry |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | John Martin |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Constantine |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Jeff MacDonald |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | ScottK (although he also was against :-) |
| 13:37 | <SDGathman> | Hector (as noted here by willix - I counted him as against) |
| 13:38 | <willix> | add Michael Elliott as for |
| 13:39 | <SDGathman> | Con: Wayne |
| 13:39 | <SDGathman> | Andrew (IBM) |
| 13:39 | <SDGathman> | Mark |
| 13:39 | <SDGathman> | Alex |
| 13:39 | <SDGathman> | ScottK :-) |
| 13:39 | <SDGathman> | Others I didn't catch that Alex mentioned (but didn't list) |
| 13:39 | <MarkK> | that Mark is not me, right? |
| 13:41 | <MarkK> | I certainly wrote that email you quote |
| 13:42 | <SDGathman> | Mark - system admin assarian host |
| 13:42 | <MarkK> | good :) |
| 13:42 | <MarkK> | I know him |
| 13:43 | <SDGathman> | I was counting everyone I could find in the debate. |
| 13:43 | <willix> | I think the situation is somewhere around 9:5 for/against |
| 13:43 | <MarkK> | Ok; I just wanted to know exactly who we are counting |
| 13:43 | <SDGathman> | Alex said: I'm sure I contributed. That's already 8 to 6. More people you |
| 13:43 | <SDGathman> | forgot to mention may make it 8 to 8. That's not what I call rough |
| 13:43 | <SDGathman> | consensus. |
| 13:44 | <MarkK> | so, 8 for, 6 against? |
| 13:45 | <MarkK> | or 8 - 8 now? |
| 13:45 | <willix> | ... |
| 13:45 | <SDGathman> | It would be 8-6 pro appeal or maybe 8-8. |
| 13:45 | <SDGathman> | But that is what alex said - he didn't list the people I may have forgotten. |
| 13:47 | <SDGathman> | If this were an election, we would be counting handing chad... |
| 13:47 | <SDGathman> | We also have to look at the arguments presented. |
| 13:49 | <SDGathman> | In my perception, the pro arguments are based on justice. The con arguments are based on prudence. |
| 13:49 | <MarkK> | yes; ok, so does anyone feel particularly moved by a new argument, and thinks we have to discuss it? |
| 13:49 | <SDGathman> | I wish. |
| 13:49 | <MarkK> | I for one, did not hear a whole lot new; but then again, I'm just me |
| 13:50 | <SDGathman> | One argument claimed that a delay would hurt SID more than SPF. Is there any basis to that? |
| 13:51 | <shew> | (I only saw parts of the pro arguments based on justice. I saw pragmanatacism (sp?) and prudence based arguments on both sides.) |
| 13:52 | <SDGathman> | Agreed, that was just my overall perception. |
| 13:52 | <shew> | That was my claim. Basically an rfc "legitimizes" the spf re-use, which is a sender-id win, meaning a delay hurts sender-id more than spf, given the current understanding that v=spf1 means spf1. |
| 13:52 | <MarkK> | I think the 'con' agrument is largely based on the expectation that little is to be gained, if anything, and probably more to be lost, in terms of delays |
| 13:52 | <shew> | Or at least, that was what I was trying to say. |
| 13:53 | <shew> | Unfortunately I think (as a pro-person, granted), that the "pro" argument is based on the opposite expectation--little/small-risk to be lost, more to be potentially gained. |
| 13:53 | <MarkK> | I think we left off, last time, all agreeing that, in terms of 'justice' or technical merit, the appeal is justified. |
| 13:53 | <shew> | It's frustrating that this isn't a black&white easy-to-figure a perfect answer issue. :-/ |
| 13:55 | <MarkK> | yeah; the effects are hard to predict, I must say. Seriously, predicting is a difficult business; especially when it concerns the future. |
| 13:56 | <SDGathman> | Is there a significant risk that SPF but not SID could be delayed? Several assured that either SID only or both would be delayed, but I want confirmation. |
| 13:56 | <willix> | I have looked at posts and here is who is for and against based on what I can see: |
| 13:56 | <willix> | For appeal: Frank Ellermann, Mark Shewmaker, Terry Feelder, John Martin, |
| 13:56 | <willix> | Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff MacDonald, Scott Kitterman, Mike (dotzero), |
| 13:56 | <willix> | Hector Santos, Michael Elliott, Steven Dorst |
| 13:56 | <willix> | Against Appeal: Wayne Schlitt, Andrew Donoho, Mark Kramer, Alex van den Bogaerdt, |
| 13:56 | <willix> | John Hinton, Greg Connor, Meng Weng Wong |
| 13:57 | <MarkK> | it was argued, I believe, that both proposals could be blocked, in terms of getting their status |
| 13:57 | <willix> | Its about 11:7 |
| 13:58 | <shew> | To me I'm thinking that the clarity on the technical and "moral" side more than tips ambiguity on the practical side. (Though I am pro-appeal on the practical side too). Just as clarity on the practical side would tip me one way or the other if the technical or moral sides were ambiguous. |
| 13:58 | <SDGathman> | If the worse case outcome is both being delayed, we are no worse off. |
| 13:58 | <willix> | 11/18 is 61% which counts as very very slight rough consensus |
| 13:59 | <willix> | I'll email this data to spf-discuss in separate email |
| 14:00 | <willix> | I think IAB will delay both SPF and SID until appeal is resolved for sure |
| 14:00 | <MarkK> | ok, thanks |
| 14:00 | <MarkK> | willix: yes, that is the current 'fear' |
| 14:01 | <SDGathman> | I think we can live with that. |
| 14:01 | <MarkK> | or, rather, perhap deny them both |
| 14:01 | <MarkK> | which would NOT be good |
| 14:01 | <willix> | I personally think IAB will say same as IESG - i.e. that eventhough we have correct arguments for standard track, these are not standard-track documents and IETF lets IESG pretty much decide how to proceed in these cases |
| 14:01 | <willix> | I think delay would be closer to 2 months |
| 14:01 | <MarkK> | willix: yes; hence, I am inclined to vote 'no' |
| 14:02 | <MarkK> | I see no real good argument that convinces me that the IAB will follow a radically different rationalr than the IESG |
| 14:03 | <MarkK> | rationale, even |
| 14:03 | <SDGathman> | It is important that we not acquiesce to the reuse abuse. Does a formal protest address that? |
| 14:04 | <willix> | It simply puts it on the record that IESG decision on previous appeal did not address the issues |
| 14:04 | <willix> | But not on any official record |
| 14:05 | <shew> | MarkK, does Frank's example of IAB over-ruling a useful example of showing how the iab can follow a different rationale? (Granted, that was an easier issue.) |
| 14:05 | <shew> | ".. for you" |
| 14:06 | <MarkK> | I honestly doubt it will happen |
| 14:06 | <SDGathman> | It occured to me last night, that after M$ deploys reuse abuse, and forces everyone to publish SID "opt-out" records, they will then issue a press release claiming all those opt-out records as SID records. |
| 14:06 | <willix> | the number of opt-out records is very low |
| 14:07 | <MarkK> | I think the reality of life is simply that they will not want to 'slap' MS, silly as that sounds. |
| 14:07 | <willix> | Ok, can we have non-official roll-call on how you prefer to resolve this |
| 14:08 | <SDGathman> | Ok, so the "judge" is unjust. But does that mean we shouldn't persevere in seeking justice? |
| 14:08 | <shew> | I guess I have a hard time seeing it as a slap, as I see it as preventing a technical incompatibility. Now, pointing out problems in PRA and blocking things on that might be a "slap". |
| 14:08 | <shew> | I'm okaywith a roll-call. |
| 14:08 | <MarkK> | ok, roll-call |
| 14:09 | <shew> | For IAB appeal. |
| 14:10 | <MarkK> | against IAB appeal |
| 14:10 | <SDGathman> | I would vote 'yes' for appeal, as best representing the community. |
| 14:11 | <MarkK> | Is that 18/11 thing final? Because that would be a real majority |
| 14:11 | <willix> | Its final the way I see it |
| 14:11 | <MarkK> | ok, good enough for me |
| 14:12 | <SDGathman> | That was 11 to 7. 11/(11 + 7) |
| 14:12 | <willix> | I'm going to be on the record that I'm against appeal because I think it'd not achieve anything and will alienate email industry people even further |
| 14:12 | <SDGathman> | I can understand that. I really can. |
| 14:12 | <willix> | but the community seems to prefer to go for appeal with slight majority |
| 14:13 | <willix> | Lets vote now and email results to spf-council |
| 14:13 | <SDGathman> | It is such a minor change. Perhaps the appeal can be worded to emphasize how resolving the conflict does not harm the PRA project in any way. |
| 14:14 | <MarkK> | willix: I am pretty much of the same position; I fear the industry will, sooner rather than later, simply be fed up with SPF and their ways to block MS; even when we are totally justified, morally and technically, to do so. But, true or false, perpetion is 9/10 of the law, I'd say. |
| 14:14 | <willix> | The laws are not at all just, never have been |
| 14:14 | <MarkK> | perceptuon, even |
| 14:15 | <MarkK> | perception, even |
| 14:15 | <MarkK> | (sorry, can't spell today) |
| 14:15 | <willix> | and decisions of court even less so |
| 14:15 | <shew> | SDGathman: I agree with the importance of wording. |
| 14:15 | <SDGathman> | We are not trying to block PRA - just keep it disentangle from SPF classic. |
| 14:16 | <MarkK> | no; but in the world industry, what ppl perceive as happening and what is really happening, may be two different things |
| 14:17 | <MarkK> | and I fear we may appear, to the industry, as the annoying, blockin guys; regardless of whether this is really true |
| 14:17 | <willix> | But you understand that even if it says something in RFC, the software writers will ignore it if it suites their interest |
| 14:17 | <SDGathman> | If the system is really so unjust, then we can't win anyway. So we might as well do the right thing, and go down with a clear conscience. |
| 14:18 | <willix> | Typically these are advertised as special features and typically marketed as being an achievement above and beyond IETF |
| 14:18 | <SDGathman> | But no one will be blocked if they just fix their minor technical error! |
| 14:20 | <willix> | BTW - if I count my voice, its 11/19 for and 8/19 against |
| 14:21 | <willix> | They are using records for email filtering. The filtering is inprecise, especially if you consider how usually it is all constructured with bayesean algorithms |
| 14:21 | <shew> | The clarity of the technical issue is so extreme that I have difficulty seeing how a wider, presumably-less-biased group that would judge the IAB appeal could also ignore the real technical issue. |
| 14:21 | <MarkK> | Stuart, it is a hard call; running into a brick wall, with eyes wide open, ppl might not think that particular wise, either. |
| 14:22 | <MarkK> | history will, indeed, have to judge us mildly |
| 14:22 | <willix> | Personally I proposed before a compromise that postitive results of v=SPF1 records can be used with PRA but not negative results |
| 14:22 | <MarkK> | I think it's too late in the game for that |
| 14:23 | <willix> | MarkK: its not too late actually, that is mostly how MS is using it anyway |
| 14:25 | <shew> | I do not agree with that compromise, as it still has technical problems--and there's simply no need for it, as domain owners who wish to opt-in to sender-id can still opt-in even when spfv1 re-use is not allowed. |
| 14:26 | <shew> | I don't think it's proper or useful to suggest something as a compromise that is from a technical position only half as bad. |
| 14:26 | <willix> | tell me how its bad |
| 14:27 | <MarkK> | I do not think this meeting is meant to discuss that, actually; we should stick with the vote |
| 14:28 | <willix> | Yes I agree |
| 14:28 | <shew> | Okay. |
| 14:28 | <willix> | Motion: SPF Community should proceed with IAB appeal |
| 14:28 | <MarkK> | seconds? |
| 14:28 | <SDGathman> | 14:28u seconded |
| 14:29 | <MarkK> | votes? |
| 14:29 | <shew> | 1428u: Yes. |
| 14:29 | <SDGathman> | 14:28u: yes |
| 14:29 | <willix> | 1428u: yes |
| 14:29 | <MarkK> | 1428u: yes |
| 14:29 | <willix> | (for the record yes vote is because I believe that is what community wanted) |
| 14:29 | <MarkK> | Ok, that was interesting :) |
| 14:30 | <SDGathman> | willix, your idea is a decent compromise. |
| 14:30 | <shew> | Okay, that was interesting. |
| 14:30 | <willix> | Mark you need to close the vote |
| 14:30 | <MarkK> | for the record, I voted yes for the same reason: it is apparently what ppl want |
| 14:30 | <MarkK> | motion carries |
| 14:30 | <willix> | (1428: motion carries) |
| 14:31 | <MarkK> | yes; 1428u: so ordered (to be precise) |
| 14:31 | <MarkK> | ok, history, do your judging. :) |
| 14:31 | <willix> | ok thanks everyone |
| 14:31 | <MarkK> | Anyone has anything else to discuss? |
| 14:32 | <SDGathman> | the willix compromise. |
| 14:32 | <SDGathman> | Avoids forcing people to opt-in to SID to get mail delivered. |
| 14:32 | <MarkK> | Is it not better to do that saturday, with julian present? |
| 14:32 | <SDGathman> | Ok. |
| 14:32 | <willix> | I think I was not the first to bring it up |
| 14:32 | <MarkK> | In this case, we really had no choice |
| 14:32 | <SDGathman> | So it will not be mentioned in appeal? |
| 14:33 | <MarkK> | I guess not, then |
| 14:33 | <shew> | While I admit that it's harder to figure corner cases where that would be a problem, I don't actually see the need of it--folks could just opt-in for the moment, and a future version of spf should allow for an easier way to do the scoping anyway. |
| 14:33 | <willix> | No, but info about it is available and I'll comment on it at IETF main list |
| 14:33 | <MarkK> | (mark rrally wishes julian had been here, also for the record) |
| 14:34 | <MarkK> | So, we're ready to close then? |
| 14:34 | <SDGathman> | ok |
| 14:34 | <MarkK> | Ok, then I hereby declare this meeting officially closed |
| 14:35 | <willix> | As council secretary I'll inform community as well as email to Julian on SPF-council list to proceed with appeal |
| 14:35 | <MarkK> | than you, william |
| 14:36 | <shew> | Well, he now has the un-envious task of wording an appeal politely and nonconfrontationaly so as to get the point across in a way that will more likely lead it to being resolved quickly. |
| 14:36 | <shew> | Thanks all. |
| 14:37 | <MarkK> | yes, thank you all for coming here; especially those who had to get up real early |
| 14:38 | <MarkK> | we are officially adjourned; so, feel free to leave. :) |
| 14:39 | <MarkK> | As I have further things to do, I think I will indeed take my leave, |
| 14:39 | <willix> | again thanks everyone and you should see my emails shortly |
| 14:39 | <willix> | bye |
| 14:39 | <MarkK> | good day |
| 14:39 | <willix> | \q |