IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Moderator note (was: Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05)

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 15:08 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 BE68221F85E1 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9R2DG12JhRYf for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EC921F85DB for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 901FC1ECB41C for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:08:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:08:05 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120423150800.GK55520@mail.yitter.info>
References: <CAC4RtVAV5PH+VMzppVxAQgGq0f28ARN846e17G_8sbLCThm-KA@mail.gmail.com> <84f787db-1601-47e5-a8e4-2d3301e12b11@email.android.com> <20120423143037.GF55520@mail.yitter.info> <1929165.QqZ6YMCCuh@scott-latitude-e6320>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1929165.QqZ6YMCCuh@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Moderator note (was: Review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-05)
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:08:08 -0000

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:00:23AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As long as we equally don't debate what was in the IESG/directorate's minds 
> when they shut down MARID, I think that's wonderful.

I fully agree, although we do have statements from the IESG.
Particularly, we have the IESG notes on the published documents, which
stated that there was no technical consensus.  Since those are notes
from the IESG, we can correctly read it as making a claim about the
judgement of the IESG at the time of publication.  But going any
further is a bad idea, I very strongly agree.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email