Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Sun, 11 December 2005 20:35 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 1ElXuS-0000IM-Bg; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:35:04 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ElXuP-0000FR-Uz for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:35:02 -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 PAA04615 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:34:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from stratton-three-sixty-five.mit.edu ([18.187.6.110] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ElXv4-0003Wr-1v for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:35:43 -0500
Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id A9FBCE0070; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:34:57 -0500 (EST)
To: wayne <wayne@schlitt.net>
References: <200512092141.NAA00720@gra.isi.edu> <x4fyp1n5xs.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:34:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <x4fyp1n5xs.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net> (wayne@schlitt.net's message of "Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:37:03 -0600")
Message-ID: <tslbqznbcem.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955
Cc: 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
>>>>> "wayne" == wayne <wayne@schlitt.net> writes: wayne> In <200512092141.NAA00720@gra.isi.edu> Bob Braden wayne> <braden@ISI.EDU> writes: >> This thread has contained several suggestions that publication >> of an RFC in the Experimental category constitutes an "IETF >> experiment". wayne> This is, in part, due to the directions of the IESG. For wayne> example, the IESG note that will be placed at the top of wayne> these drafts refer to things like a two year observation wayne> period. So, while there isn't anything in RFC2026 that wayne> documents what the IESG has requested, I don't think the wayne> "experiment" term is being thrown around quite as loosely wayne> as might first seem. I have to agree. While typically the term experimental RFC does not imply an IETF experiment, I think this is a bit more organized. I'm not sure there actually is an IETF experiment. However the IESG has more or less said that anyone wanting to move one of these technologies onto the standards track needs to come back in some period of time and demonstrate an IETF experiment took place and present some conclusions. Put slightly differently, we cannot force there to be an IETf experiment. We can encourage people to conduct such an experiment. We can make an experiment of that type a pre-condition for being on the standards track. People then need to decide whether having an Internet standard in this space is worth the effort of conducting such an experiment and eventually changing their protocol to resolve the conflicts. If people don't think that's worth the effort, that's fine; then instead of being an experiment these RFCs will turn into a documentation of some practice people are deploying on the internet. so, yes the IESG is sort oof putting an optimistic spin on things by calling it an experiment. We're hoping people will want to come back some day, fix the problems and make a standard. It's clear to me that neither SPF nor Sender ID could achieve the necessary rough consensus to be a standard-track protocol. That sometimes happens. The IETF is good at solving problems where rough consensus is the appropriate decision making mechansim. Some problems work well that way. Some do not. If your problem does not achieve rough consensus the perhaps the IETF is not the right place to bring it [1]. In my mind the major tragidy of marid seems to be that we were very inefficient at realizing we could not get consensus. It would have been a lot more efficient, professional and desirable if people had worked to understand each other and then stated what their constraints were and on what issues they could not budge. If there was no way to satisfy all the stakeholders pack up early and go home, but do so with respect and understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong. Here's a challenge to anyone who believes they can get a consensus on this issue. Go get a proposal together and get agreement from the major stakeholders involved in marid that they will support your proposal. Ask to publish as an individual submission on the standards track. If you succeed, the IESG will end up looking rather foolish. Personally I'd rather play the part of a fool and end up fixing a big problem than forever fail to reach some important understanding. If you do decide to take me up on this challenge I can try to answer process questions in personal mail. I cannot guarantee that I'll have a lot of time particularly as questions become more complicated. --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-0… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Ned Freed
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bill Sommerfeld
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Theodore Ts'o
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Andrew Newton
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Andrew Newton
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Andrew Newton
- RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Thomas Gal
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bruce Lilly
- Is it necessary to go through Standards Track to … C. M. Heard
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Scott W Brim
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Douglas Otis
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Dotzero
- RE: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Jeff Macdonald
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Pekka Savola
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Dick St.Peters
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Julian Mehnle
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Dick St.Peters
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draf… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Bob Braden
- Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational John Levine
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… John Levine
- Re: Re declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informatio… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: declare SPF and Sender-ID to be Informational Frank Ellermann
- Individual submissions and Informational RFCs wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Sam Hartman
- Re: Individual submissions and Informational RFCs John C Klensin
- Re: Individual submissions and Informational RFCs Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Individual submissions and Informational RFCs wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Sam Hartman
- Last call IETF experiments (was: Appeal ....) Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last call IETF experiments (was: Appeal ....) John C Klensin
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… wayne
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Keith Moore
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… william(at)elan.net
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… Douglas Otis
- Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-co… william(at)elan.net
- SES or BATV (was: Publication of draft-lyon-sende… Frank Ellermann
- SES vs BATV Douglas Otis
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Sam Hartman
- Re: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in… Douglas Otis
- Re: Last call IETF experiments Frank Ellermann
- Re: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in… Frank Ellermann