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

["Theodore Ts'o" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:25:29PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> If the IESG were to refuse to publish the Sender-ID document as it is,
> it would not "police" everything: anyone can still do what he wants on
> the Internet.
> 
> The only thing than the IETF can do is to "bless" or not the document,
> saying in essence "it is interesting and worth more
> experimentation". Not blessing it does not mean actively using lethal
> force against those who still want to try it.
> 
> So, cool down, nobody asked the IESG to police or to censor or to
> forbid, just to NOT bless a bad idea (reusing SPF records in an
> unattended way).

I agree with this sentiment.  It's not like the RFC series is the only
place that protocol specifications for such experiments can be
published, and with Google and the Wayback Archive, the search and
persistence problems are solved as well.  So we should only publish if
we think we can add some kind of value beyond that which any yahoo who
owns a web server can do with publishing some random specification on
the web.  

Making sure that experiments don't collide with one another seems like
a very basic starting point.  This is especially important in this
particular case given how contentious the debate over proposals in
this problem space have been in the past.

						- Ted

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