IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02 MARID <ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Fri, 26 August 2005 13:53 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8eeT-0006J2-0r; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:49 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8eeQ-0006Ir-QC; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:47 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20615; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zak.ecotroph.net ([216.93.167.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E8ef7-0007MN-Nh; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:54:32 -0400
Received: from [10.0.1.4] ([::ffff:64.83.8.178]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-SHA) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:39 -0400 id 000B3AD8.430F1EE3.00006E03
In-Reply-To: <20050826131513.GA29797@nic.fr>
References: <B5BB79FFA1CF09E73E64D992@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <1124993318.13993.123.camel@thunk> <09E57A88-3A53-4A78-99D9-67E95B93E9C5@hxr.us> <20050826131513.GA29797@nic.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <B7DB0319-F49A-4B9E-9EFC-7E18DAA54549@hxr.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:38 -0400
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733)
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: MARID <ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02 MARID <ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>
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 Aug 26, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 08:47:17AM -0400,
>  Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote
>  a message of 21 lines which said:
>
>
>> If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should
>> not use the v=spf1 records.
>>
>
> It is an absolutely incredible request since SPF uses these records
> since its beginning (a long time before Sender-ID existed) and since
> there is (unlike SenderID) actual deployment, which can not be called
> back.

Is this appeal about avoiding further conflict or is it about  
challenging past differences?

-andy

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email