At 6:42 PM +0000 05/28/2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> As the AD who sponsored this work, I have to disagree. ...
The recent interim meeting resulted in an agreement to work on
a converged spec taking ideas from SPF and Caller-ID.
Why? These are latecomers to the field. Or is it because of this:
<http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21100498>
Microsoft To Merge Caller ID With SPF Anti-Spam Scheme
Microsoft on Tuesday agreed to blend its Caller ID for E-mail
anti-spam proposal with another of the leading domain
authentication schemes, Sender Policy Framework (SPF).
The company reached the agreement with Meng Wong, the author of
SPF, to merge the two proposals into one specification that will
be presented to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
standards body in June.
I think you are confusing cause and effect. Of course, the trade press's
view of this and a participant's are likely to be different. I may be confused
by my actual attendance at these meetings and reading of the mailing list.
If there's a more blatant example of rubber stamping in the history of
IETF,
Since the converged spec is still in development and the discussion
has involved all of the parties (at least at the interim meeting) recognizing
that they would have to compromise fairly major pieces of their
existing proposals, this doesn't look like rubber stamping to me.
Eric Allman, who has kindly agreed to take on editing one of the
forthcoming drafts was also never a party to any of the proposals.
I invite those interested in forming their own opinions to participate
in the mailing list for MARID. I do not think rubber stamping will
come to mind, but perhaps you should also read the trade press,
just in case you would like a different view.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf