Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> of course, the idea of the IESG "policing" anything that
> happens on the Internet has to be kind of silly, given that
> two consenting endpoints can send just about anything to
> each other, especially above the IP layer, and our obvious
> lack of any enforcement mechanism.
Of course. OTOH these are RfCs submitted through the IETF,
one of them intended to be a PS, and initiating what passes
as an internal (= IETF, non-WG) "last call", and it was as
ready for a proper "IETF last call" including Bruce's famous
reviews and other obstacles as "we" (SPF) could get it.
If it really covers 80% of AOL's inbound mail that's a rather
big "experiment" if you ask me, and about 750,000 domains
and an unknown (more than four) number of independent and
(claiming to be) interoperable SPF implementations is also
a bit more than a mere prototype.
> if the IESG helps experiments avoid gratuitous conflicts,
> that is wonderful - but for more than that, the IESG is
> working very hard just to get the STANDARD protocols out :-)
It's their privilege to decide about the status. It's my
privilege to think that "experimental" for SPF was foolish.
But that's beside the point for the senderid-appeal.
Bye, Frank
http://mid.gmane.org/42B4624D.5086@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf