On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:25:29PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > If the IESG were to refuse to publish the Sender-ID document as it is, > it would not "police" everything: anyone can still do what he wants on > the Internet. > > The only thing than the IETF can do is to "bless" or not the document, > saying in essence "it is interesting and worth more > experimentation". Not blessing it does not mean actively using lethal > force against those who still want to try it. > > So, cool down, nobody asked the IESG to police or to censor or to > forbid, just to NOT bless a bad idea (reusing SPF records in an > unattended way). I agree with this sentiment. It's not like the RFC series is the only place that protocol specifications for such experiments can be published, and with Google and the Wayback Archive, the search and persistence problems are solved as well. So we should only publish if we think we can add some kind of value beyond that which any yahoo who owns a web server can do with publishing some random specification on the web. Making sure that experiments don't collide with one another seems like a very basic starting point. This is especially important in this particular case given how contentious the debate over proposals in this problem space have been in the past. - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf