[spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Wed, 29 May 2013 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FB921F9764 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 14:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EjJQsP4bEFKS for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 14:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 494F021F9763 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 14:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (nat-01-mht.dyndns.com [216.146.45.240]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BF038A031 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 21:42:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:42:34 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20130529214234.GB9584@mx1.yitter.info>
References: <A022755E-F8B8-4C82-9F1C-73B8585193BF@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130528130858.0db81cd0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwan7JO4t2UB1uWYwwf1MmwhY56szenSY7awT_pNP5UjLg@mail.gmail.com> <B6A88D56-9318-40A3-8E0C-A49EE37A3F3F@gmail.com> <20130529143635.GZ23227@verdi> <CD0B53CE-E90E-4296-B724-0749361D7626@gmail.com> <20130529202145.GA9506@mx1.yitter.info> <20130529212602.5909734DBABF@drugs.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130529212602.5909734DBABF@drugs.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 21:42:45 -0000

Moderator hat.

Mark,

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:26:01AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> In message <20130529202145.GA9506@mx1.yitter.info>fo>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> > The only reason we decided that we had to do something with TYPE 99

> And what has been done does NOT fix the perceived interoperability

If you're going to start a completely irrelevant thread to the thing
we are talking about, do you think you might at least change the
subject line?

The RRTYPE discussion has been closed in this WG; we made a decision
some time ago.  You have not presented any new arguments, as nearly as
I can tell, for revisiting that decision, so I don't think it is
reasonable to reopen the discussion.  But if you plan to do so, please
at least don't drag that red herring through the path of a different,
already contentious, discussion.

Thanks,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com