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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:29 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [spfbis] Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05
> 
> Since Sender ID makes use of SPF records, it is possible to make the
> claim that lack of publishing Sender ID specific records is not a sign
> of disinterest in Sender ID, but in fact a sign that few senders find
> problems with publishing an SPF records for both.
> 
> Since a large number of domains (I don't have a number I can support,
> but it's clear that SPF was widely adopted before the Sender ID RFCs
> were published) published records before they were used for both
> protocols, I think it's an important point that all those domains were
> opt-ed in to the Sender ID experiment involuntarily.

Taken together, this says early SPF adopters became unwitting participants in the Sender ID experiment, but it didn't make a difference in the end because it didn't cause any problems.  If that's the case, then why is highlighting who was "here" first (in terms of the DNS mechanism) an important thing?

> There are any number of ways we could re-write history to make things
> more palatable, but I think it's important that what we say be correct.

I think there's a difference between deliberate historical revisionism and an effort to avoid details that don't appear to be relevant to the matter at hand.  The actual history is well-documented if the curious want to go unearth it.  We aren't trying to hide anything; we're just trying to (and need to) avoid showing bias.

-MSK