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

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

Thomas Gal wrote:

> Well clearly IANA won't accept 2 differing registrations that
> overlap on this matter. Certainly it is the IETF/IESG/IAB's
> job to rectify that incongruity?

There's IMHO no IANA problem, using the same DNS RR type 99 is
possible / desirable.

> For the IESG to say "Change your records to v=senderid or
> something that doesn't conflict with this other previously
> printed document and large number of installations or we
> can't really distribute this document" makes perfect sense.

Yes, that's in fact all that has to be done, and what the
appeal proposes, spf2.0 may interpret v=spf1 as spf2.0/mfrom,
but not as spf2.0/mfrom,pra   The proposed remedy is "KISS".

> I'm not going to try to harp on IPR, or the end of the IETF,

IANAL and not very much interested in the former - excl. the
day when I tried to read and understand the IPR boilerplate
in the first CID draft, because it was obvious right from the
day when CID was published that something very odd happens.

IIRC the plan for MARID was to use several ASRG LMAP proposals
as input (SPF, CSV, MTAMARK among others).  After CID was added
and the ASRG cochair resigned (ASRG almost dead since this day)
the situation deteriorated.

So back to your statement above:  The senderid-appeal is the
continuation of the "shuffle those deck chairs" thread here.

                             Bye, Frank




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