Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

NB: I have read the rest of the thread; but this is what deserves a reply:

Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 
>> AD hat squarely on my head.

   (There may have been a miscommunication here -- what particular AD
function Pete was speaking in; but to me, at least, it becomes clear
in context.)

>> On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> Oh.  Now I understand.
>>>
>>> You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
>>> years after the IETF approved it.
>>>
>>> Thanks.  Very helpful.
>>
>> That's not an appropriate response.

   Dave has every right to disagree on that; but I quite agree with
Pete. It is decidedly not helpful, not productive, and tends towards
escalating a discussion which has no need of escalation.

>> It is certainly not helpful to me as the consensus caller.

   Dave has no right to disagree with this. We pay Pete the big bucks
to call consensus on difficult issues like this. We need to understand
it will be hard sometimes.

   I'm sure Dave has read Pete's draft on the meaning of consensus.
I'm less sure he remembered it as he responded here.

   If this is the sort of response given to somewhat-valid questions
raised about the draft being proposed, Pete will eventually have to
say there _is_ no consensus. :^(

>> And it is rude.

   Pete's opinion. (I happen to share it.)

   Consensus process works _much_ better if we respect the opinions
of others -- even when we "know" they're wrong.

> Since you've made this a formal process point,

   Pete has _not_ done this.

> I'll ask you to substantiate it carefully and also formally...

   I see no reason Pete has any obligation to do so. If he chooses
to, I ask him to not do it on this list. ("Please don't feed the
troll" comes to mind.)

> A bit of edge is warranted for such wasteful, distracting and 
> destabilizing consumption of IETF resources...

   Dave's opinion. (I happen to not share it.)

   Consensus process _also_ works better if we respect Dave's
opinion here.

   I suggest we all remember that we don't have to change others'
opinions here (were such a thing possible). We have only to bring
them to the point where they agree they can live with the result.

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>