>> 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=2110049 8> I place a very high premium on the ability to get something to happen. better latecommers who have influence than an obsolete internet draft that has been ignored. All the authors of the drafts have acknowledged the contribution you and Hadmut made in this work. You showed no interest in being involved. >If there's a more blatant example of rubber stamping in the history of >IETF, then I hope a better historian than I can share the archives with >me. As you know very well I very much favor the OASIS model of standards agreement where Working Groups are allowed to suceed or fail on their own merits. Microsoft and the SPF group very clearly have the ability to establish a de facto standard here without standards review if they choose. That may be a fact that you do not like but it is still a fact. Another fact is that despite having that ability to choose their own path they have for the time being decided to participate in the IETF process. The fact is that Meng and Bob have both made significant concessions in the merged proposals, concessions that they had previously been unable to accept. As a result both parties have achieved a result that meets all their 'dealbreaker' objectives. The long term and short term engineering objectives are both met. This does not represent a 'rubber stamp' in my view. I do not know what to make of your conspiracy 'elephant' theory. I think you are way off the mark, I have not heard anyone call the plan "fully verified opt-in", but it is hardly a secret. Yes I believe that within a short time very few people will be accepting any mail from any source that is not authenticated and accredited as being trustworthy. That is simply a process in this industry that has been underway for a long time, you bear a large personal responsibility for this process, you started it. It would certainly be a good thing if the IESG and the IAB spent their time considering important questions about the future of the Internet and the big picture architectural issues. But they don't and they will have no time to do so until they get out of the business of trying to micromanage working groups to save themselves from themselves. If this issue had been thought through five years ago there might perhaps be a different outcome possible. Witholding recognition of the standard is not going to change the outcome. Phill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf