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

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Let me phrase it this way: the IESG should not sanction conflicting
> > experiments by publishing conflicting specifications,
>
> I agree.
>
> But I do not believe that SPF and Sender-ID conflict in any way
> whatsoever and this was accepted by the WG right up to the point where
> people started to complain about IPR licenses.

You do not seem to have read the appeal and the referenced items.  There 
was a consensus that "v=spf1" records should not be used for checking RFC 
2822 identities.  This re-use was only introduced into the Sender ID spec 
after MARID had already died and after the IESG had asked for individual 
submissions.

> I do not think that the IESG should block a proposal citing a conflict
> when the real animus here is entirely due to the IPR issue.

How do you know what the (the SPF project's) "real animus" is in making 
this appeal?

> All SPF does is provide a mechanism whereby sending parties can
> describe their outgoing edge mail servers. The recipient has the
> absolute right to interpret that data in any way they see fit. That is
> the entire point of a spam filtering scheme.
>
> Nobody has ever demonstrated a conflict as far as I am concerned, all
> attempts to allege a conflict begin, "the sender intends" which is
> utterly irrelevant. The sender does not have the right to decide what 
> email client I use, they do not have the right to determine what spam
> filter I use either.

Following that logic, it would not objectionable for the IETF to publish 
as an Experimental RFC a specification which told receivers to bit-wise 
invert the calling MTA's IP address before applying SPF processing to it.  
Sorry, I don't subscribe to that sort if nihilism.

> I do not believe that one group should be able to block a proposal they
> do not like by alleging a non-existent conflict.

Burying your head in the sand doesn't make the conflict go away.
Besides, the appeal does not aim to generally block the proposal from 
being published.  Perhaps you should stop reading tea leaves.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDD23MwL7PKlBZWjsRAj4dAJwI26Gr9VQaKbzNwtwKiETHoQCwZACg7wc4
PmvUu8ApZkWtPmPhYf5MR28=
=sG4p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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