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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, April 23, 2012 03:51:45 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----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.

Facts are not bias.  Wanting to sweep them under the rug is bias.  What I am 
asking for is the exact opposite of bias.

Scott K