IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Tue, 13 December 2005 20:03 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmGN3-0008AF-6R; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:03:33 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmGN0-00088x-Hc for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:03:30 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14512 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:02:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ka.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.221]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EmGNw-0006No-DI for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:04:29 -0500
Received: from localhost (ka [127.0.0.1]) by ka.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B499235A7; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:03:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ka.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ka [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21178-06; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:03:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by ka.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4D12359E; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:03:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:03:18 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: wayne <wayne@schlitt.net>
Message-Id: <20051213150318.69f34ef3.moore@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <x48xuqksa1.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
References: <200512092141.NAA00720@gra.isi.edu> <x4fyp1n5xs.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net> <tslbqznbcem.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <x48xuqksa1.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.1 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i386--netbsdelf)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new with ClamAV and SpamAssasin at cs.utk.edu
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> I have, in the past, argued to the IESG that I did not think the SPF
> I-D should be marked Experimental because I did not see it being an
> experiment.  It has been out for 2 years now and it is far too widely
> deployed to make significant changes.  Instead, I thought it should be
> standard track. 

SPF does not meet the requirements for standards track.  It is based on
dubious premises and has too many known technical omissions, and it
also lacks rough consensus.  The fact that it is widely deployed is
irrelevant because IETF does not exist to recognize wide deployment.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email