Re: [spfbis] Meaning of SPF and domain authentication in general, was #12

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> If the SPFBIS is going recommend to end the  SIDF protocol

Let's be clear about one thing here: while "ending the SIDF protocol" might
be something some participants in this WG want to do, it is not a goal of
the WG, and as far as I can tell, no one is trying to put that in any of
the WG's documents.  The working group is chartered to describe its
consensus of the result of a number of years of experimentation with SPF
and SIDF, and to move SPF to Proposed Standard.  If that consensus says
that SPF is in wide use and SIDF is not, and there's data to support that,
it's fine.

As an AD, I will say that if any document comes out of this working group
making any normative statement (or even a strong recommendation) telling
people NOT to use SIDF, saying that SIDF is deprecated or obsolete,
obsoleting any SIDF RFC, or moving any SIDF RF to Historic, I will surely
put a DISCUSS position on that document for exceeding the WG's charter.
 I'm guessing that Pete, who's the responsible AD here, will cut it off
before it ever gets to me anyway, should a document do that.

So, please, everyone stop accusing the WG of trying to "kill" SIDF.  It
will not.  If someone should want to create an SIDFbis WG to do something
one way or the other with that protocol, that'd be a fine thing to pursue
as a separate effort.  But later, after this one is done.

Barry