Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

> On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>> * The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
>>>> that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in
>>>> that they
>>>> set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring
>>>> failure.
>>
>> I think you're going to need substantially more explanation (and
>> perhaps some data) to make a convincing case that RFC 6686 needs to be
>> reconsidered, thereby affecting this last call. The above states a
>> conclusion, but provides no data or explanation. I don't know how to
>> evaluation this.
>
> Of course, I meant, "I don't know how to *evaluate* this."


 From earlier exchanges about this concern, the assertion that I recall 
is that 7 years is not long enough, to determine whether a feature will 
be adopted.  That is, failure to gain deployment traction after 7 years 
from the time of publication should not be taken as a sufficient waiting 
period.

I do not recall anyone (else) showing support for that view, but 
certainly not any substantial constituency.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net