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

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

Andrew Newton wrote:

> I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not
> use the v=spf1 records to avoid conflict.

Yes, you are a prominent part of this "embrace and extend"
strategy also known as "steal or destroy".

> if you (the author of the document) do not consider this to
> be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should not publish
> SPF as an Experimental RFC.

Perhaps the IETF should choose its leadership more carefully.

It didn't work, this trick to get rid of the critical "NOT
RECOMMENDED" in draft-schlitt by a note to the RfC editor.

It didn't work, this trick to close MARID when it was clear
that abusing v=spf1 for PRA is a non-starter.

Hopefully it also won't work by the infamous "SHOULD abuse
v=spf1" in senderid-core-01.

The persons listed on...
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/dea-directorate.html
as well as all "no objections" on http://tinyurl.com/ayaun
will have a hard time to redeem themselves in my eyes, and
so far only one managed this.

When Keith said here that all this was only an error, not
intentional, I fear that isn't the case for some of these
persons.
                         No paseran



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf