> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 13:14, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > are you of the opinion that the IESG should try to police which experiments > > get run on the Internet by refusing to publish RFCs documenting > > possibly-conflicting experments? > It depends on the form of the conflict. > I believe that the IESG has the duty to ensure that concurrent > experiments either use experimental codepoints in non-conflicting ways, > or else require them to use distinct codepoints; to fail to do this > creates the risk that any experimental results will be > muddled/contaminated. Bingo. There is, after all, an "experiment" in "experimental". A conflict that stands a good chance of making it imposisble to get useful results from the experiment is something that clearly needs to be resolved prior to publication. There's even some support for this in RFC 2026. Section 4.2.1 talks about experimental publication being subject to "verification that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process". Now, this is phrased in terms of conflicts with standards, not conflicts between experiments, likely because the case of conflicting experiments was never envisioned. > In this case, the two experiments interpret the same codepoints in the > DNS in subtly different ways. > A mail-sending domain indicates that it is participating by publishing > certain DNS RR's. > Crucially, a mail-sending domain cannot opt in to the SPF experiment > without also opting in to the senderid experiment. This renders any > claimed results of either experiment suspect. RIght again. In any case, I support this appeal to the extent that I believe the conflicts need to be resolved prior to publication. I take no position on the means by which the conflict is resolved as long as a resolution is reached. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf