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

[Julian Mehnle <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Newton wrote:
> Wayne Schlitt wrote:
> > Andrew Newton wrote:
> > > If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should
> > > not use the v=spf1 records.
> >
> > The stated goal of draft-schlitt-spf-classic is to document SPF,
> > basically as it was before the IETF got involved.  Yes, the IETF is
> > calling it an experiment, which I don't agree with.  It is
> > documenting an existing, well established, protocol.
> >
> > Are you saying that the IETF shouldn't publish an RFC that documents
> > SPF?
>
> I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not use the
> v=spf1 records to avoid conflict. [...]

I does not make sense in any practical way whatsoever to make SPFv1 not 
use "v=spf1" records.  The fact that the IESG chose to perceive SPF as an 
experiment doesn't change that, either.

I know that there are many people who would like to eradicate SPF from 
history for a variety of reasons, but (a) it just cannot be done, and (b) 
many other people, me included, would consider it a gross waste, because 
it is evidently far from useless (even if a successor specification might 
be desirable, or if other protocols are also not useless).

Please also remember that nobody is asking for Sender ID not to make use 
of "v=spf1" records _at_all_.  The appeal is about Sender ID using them 
for PRA checking, so please be careful when wording statements like the 
above.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDD5N/wL7PKlBZWjsRAhO3AJwLjjOYmSmfsWeyvKOFfkphLZ347wCZAXfJ
5w2QFFDT7lWKI/dpAQkb7u4=
=cxJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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