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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Thu, 25 August 2005 18:36 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8MaD-000148-C3; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:36:13 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8MaB-00013q-9j; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:36:11 -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 OAA06465; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com ([209.55.107.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E8Maj-0004mv-MK; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:36:47 -0400
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LS8SE0RVVK005NVF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from ned.freed@mrochek.com); Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1124994950; h=Received: Cc:To:Message-id:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References; b=bFwQP5PyXUxu8qi4TA/fuitrIBliTpHX/5UfJtVM g5A776bnF8HCH5NMRzlhFw0+COJW6C5trZvbNBQOPZCCDQ==
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LS8RO9TFXC000092@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
Message-id: <01LS8SDHSDVC000092@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:26:07 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:08:39 -0400" <1124993318.13993.123.camel@thunk>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <B5BB79FFA1CF09E73E64D992@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <1124993318.13993.123.camel@thunk>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, iesg@ietf.org, SPF Council <spf-council@v2.listbox.com>, MARID <ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>, SPF Discussion <spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com>, ietf@ietf.org
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 Thu, 2005-08-25 at 13:14, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > are you of the opinion that the IESG should try to police which experiments
> > get run on the Internet by refusing to publish RFCs documenting
> > possibly-conflicting experments?

> It depends on the form of the conflict.

> I believe that the IESG has the duty to ensure that concurrent
> experiments either use experimental codepoints in non-conflicting ways,
> or else require them to use distinct codepoints; to fail to do this
> creates the risk that any experimental results will be
> muddled/contaminated.

Bingo. There is, after all, an "experiment" in "experimental". A conflict that
stands a good chance of making it imposisble to get useful results from the
experiment is something that clearly needs to be resolved prior to publication.

There's even some support for this in RFC 2026. Section 4.2.1 talks about
experimental publication being subject to "verification that there has been
adequate coordination with the standards process".

Now, this is phrased in terms of conflicts with standards, not conflicts
between experiments, likely because the case of conflicting experiments
was never envisioned.

> In this case, the two experiments interpret the same codepoints in the
> DNS in subtly different ways.

> A mail-sending domain indicates that it is participating by publishing
> certain DNS RR's.
> Crucially, a mail-sending domain cannot opt in to the SPF experiment
> without also opting in to the senderid experiment.  This renders any
> claimed results of either experiment suspect.

RIght again.

In any case, I support this appeal to the extent that I believe the conflicts
need to be resolved prior to publication. I take no position on the means
by which the conflict is resolved as long as a resolution is reached.

				Ned

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