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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, April 23, 2012 12:13:56 PM Barry Leiba wrote:
> > 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

I think it is biased towards Sender ID by pretending an equivalence that is 
incorrect, but it's not worth arguing over.  Go ahead with it as far as I'm 
concerned.

Scott K