Re: [apps-discuss] FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-authres-spf-erratum-00.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 1/4/12 3:28 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> At 19:33 03-01-2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Yes, that's one option.  But why wait?  4408bis is not likely to
>> change the name of "fail" as it would seriously impact backward
>> compatibility, something its charter says they will be avoiding.
> 
> It's a question of prioritizing work.  If I were to object on the Last
> Call (and you know that I won't), I would adapt some arguments from
> draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-00.  For example:
> 
>  "The essence of most work is getting the right expertise to the room
>   and to the list.  This does not happen through mere organizational
>   forms, people have to be interested about the problem."
> 
>  "expertise is brought through the right people actually reading the
>   specifications."
> 
>  "The best examples of successful work involve combining pieces of
>   expertise, with the parties having an incentive to complete the work."
> 
> Obviously, none of the above is an adequate basis to prevent
> publication.  It would be easier for me to say that this draft should be
> published quickly as it is a minor fix that doesn't require too much
> effort.  The decision rests with the Sponsoring AD anyway and whatever I
> say won't have any effect on it.  And by demonstrating support, I end up
> looking good.

I've agreed to sponsor this document. It's a simple bug fix, and bug
fixes are good. Yes, it will require cycles from various people (IESG,
IANA, RFC Editor), but I hope not too many.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
http://stpeter.im/