Re: SPF TYPE support

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

I will let the document shepherd/editor address particular points in 
this and other messages, but on one procedural point:

On 8/19/13 4:10 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> I don't believe there was an adequate answer from the advocates of 
> removing the SPF RR type...

That's an appropriate issue to raise during Last Call, and I expect the 
shepherd to elaborate on why the WG came to its conclusion, and you to 
follow up with more explanation if you still think it is inadequate. 
However:

> ...and the repeated assertion that its been discussed at length has 
> not been convincing it was appropriately addressed. It all seem to be 
> a "Shut up" approach to the problem (always suggest that its been 
> discussed already). This seems to be one of the reasons why the issue 
> will not go away. 

The above is *not* appropriate to raise. The first part is attributing 
motives to folks, which is out of line. Even if the motives of folks 
asserting these things *were* malicious, I am expected to call the 
consensus on the basis of the technical arguments and to ignore the 
motives, and that is what I plan to do. And the last sentence above is 
trying to divine the psychological state of the IETF as to why or why 
not it continues to discuss an issue, an equally inappropriate and 
unproductive thing to do during Last Call.

Let's stick to issues and not delve into these areas please.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]