Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I'm arguing that the current text remain.

Scott is right that because what's there has rough consensus, he does not
need to establish consensus to leave it there.

That said, I think the current text ill-serves the document, so let me try
again.  How about this, which I think does not attempt to attribute
anything but the Experimental requirement to the old IESG:

OLD
   Due to the absence of consensus behind one or the other, and because
   Sender-ID supported use of the same policy statement defined by SPF,
   the IESG at the time was concerned that an implementation of
   Sender-ID might erroneously apply that statement to a message and,
   depending on selected recipient actions, could improperly interfere
   with message delivery.  As a result, the IESG required the
   publication of all of these documents as Experimental, and requested
   that the community observe deployment and operation of the protocols
   over a period of two years from the date of publication in order to
   determine a reasonable path forward.

NEW
   Consensus did not clearly support one protocol over the other, and
   there was significant concern that the two would conflict in some
   significant operational situations, interfering with message delivery.
   The IESG required the publication of all of these documents as
   Experimental, and requested that the community observe deployment
   and operation of the protocols over a period of two years from the date
   of publication in order to determine a reasonable path forward.

Does that work?  I think it says what it needs to say without trying to
either blame anyone or get into historical details that are not necessary
in this document.

Barry