IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

"william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net> Fri, 09 December 2005 12:37 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkhV5-0005l0-T3; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:37:23 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkhUz-0005kN-LW for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:37:22 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27340 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 07:36:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sokol.elan.net ([216.151.192.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EkhUx-0001Pl-L5 for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:37:17 -0500
Received: from sokol.elan.net (sokol [127.0.0.1]) by sokol.elan.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB9Capim013180; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:36:51 -0800
Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by sokol.elan.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id jB9CaffX013177; Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:36:42 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: sokol.elan.net: william owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:36:40 -0800
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512090838400.13902@netcore.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0512090426220.6721@sokol.elan.net>
References: <200512081104.09113.julian@mehnle.net> <4398AE3D.512D@xyzzy.claranet.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512090838400.13902@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ietf@ietf.org, spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:

> Basically the IESG decided that accurate documentation of the running code 
> is more important than documenting something that does not exist, and maybe 
> never will exist.

> That's certainly an understandable tradeoff to make, and it gets back to the 
> more philosophical role of the IETF: should it be OK to document even 
> disrupting running code, or should the IETF "just say no" (and then we'd 
> likely have no documentation of the running code whatsoever).

What you're saying has merit but if this were purely documentation of
the running code then document would go as INFORMATIONAL RFC and then
I have to agree that bar low enough and it makes more sense to document
a [bad] system then not document it at all.

However SID drafts are going for EXPERIMENTAL status and are NOT purely
documentation of running code but rather IETF sanctioned internet-wide
experiment with possible intention to move to standard if experiment
is successful. In my view, in this case approving experiment with known
bad behavior or that is non-compliant with existing standards makes more 
harm them good for IETF.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email