Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux