> Let me phrase it this way: the IESG should not sanction conflicting > experiments by publishing conflicting specifications, I agree. But I do not believe that SPF and Sender-ID conflict in any way whatsoever and this was accepted by the WG right up to the point where people started to complain about IPR licenses. I do not think that the IESG should block a proposal citing a conflict when the real animus here is entirely due to the IPR issue. All SPF does is provide a mechanism whereby sending parties can describe their outgoing edge mail servers. The recipient has the absolute right to interpret that data in any way they see fit. That is the entire point of a spam filtering scheme. Nobody has ever demonstrated a conflict as far as I am concerned, all attempts to allege a conflict begin, "the sender intends" which is utterly irrelevant. The sender does not have the right to decide what email client I use, they do not have the right to determine what spam filter I use either. Sender-ID simply describes one means of interpreting an SPF record. It may or may not work, it may or may not be optimal, that is why it is an experiment. An SPF record may be constructed in such a fashion that Sender-ID verification is not possible. That is not a conflict, it is simply an artifact that results from the baroque nature of the SPF spec. I do not believe that one group should be able to block a proposal they do not like by alleging a non-existent conflict. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf