In <09E57A88-3A53-4A78-99D9-67E95B93E9C5@xxxxxx> Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> writes: > On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > >> 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. > > If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should > not use the v=spf1 records. > > -andy The stated goal of draft-schlitt-spf-classic is to document SPF, basically as it was before the IETF got involved. Yes, the IETF is calling it an experiment, which I don't agree with. It is documenting an existing, well established, protocol. Are you saying that the IETF shouldn't publish an RFC that documents SPF? Yes, the IETF, via that MARID WG, tried to create a new protocol called SenderID that was based on both SPF and CallerID. I can see that newly created protocol being called an experiement, but I don't see why the IETF should go out of its way to bless a new protocol that is incompatible with an existing one. Is this the normal process of the IETF to create conflicting standards, just because one standard was developed outside the IETF? -wayne _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
