Ned Freed wrote: > the FSF site basically said "write in and voice your opposition to > the publication of tls-authz" and did not mention actually reviewing > the specification, it seems reasonable to be skeptical. Yes. That's of course not the same as dismissing all contributions in this thread as nonsense, e.g. one author writing on behalf of FIFF. And it already resulted in constructive proposals like Brian's draft. > I agree with Scott Bradner's assessment that this is effectively a > call to engage in censorship. Maybe the IESG could add one of its (in)famous "notes" to the memo, the day before yesterday I stumbled over RFC 3974 mentioned in the 2821bis draft. > I believe the main concerns with experimental specifications should be > (a) Whether or not things are clear enough for meaningful > experimentation to take place and > (b) Whether or not the experimentation has been defined in such a way > that it won't interfere with existing standards-compliant usage or > any other experiements. > And in my view this specification easily meets both of these criteria. > (I note in passing that in my view the sender-id and SPF experiments > taken together fail to meet the last of these criteria and IMO should > not have been published without first being modified so there's no > chance of them interfering with each other.) Unfortunately the IAB decreed that it's no problem when the sender-id experiment gets an IESG "note" stating that it does interfere with existing standards, will never enter standards track as is, and tries an unfriendly takeover of SPF. That means if an experiment tries the stunt to say "update MIME" it would be a waste of time to ask the IAB what they think about it. They'd say "experiments are experiments, nobody really cares" :-( Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf