Re: [spfbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-07.txt

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/24/2012 12:27 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> "The two protocols made use of this same policy statement and some specific
> (but different) logic to evaluate whether  the email client sending or relaying
> a message was authorized to do so." still really bothers me because I think it
> is factually incorrect.
>
> SPF designated a policy statement record and used it.  Sender ID designated a
> policy statement record and used both it and the SPF record.  Papering this
> over is wrong.


It does not paper it over.  It ignores the question of precedence and, 
instead noting the fact of dual use.

It's not that precedence isn't an isn't an interesting question.  It's 
that it is irrelevant to the current topic.

Don't fight battles that distract from the current work.

One could imagine a separate Informational discussion paper that reviews 
the history of this topic, possibly suggesting things that could have 
been avoided and ways that things could have been handled better.

Such a paper might be a useful lesson for public discussion of protocol 
evolution.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net