On Wed 02/Oct/2013 16:52:38 +0200 John Levine wrote: >>The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make >>the following status changes: >> >>- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic >> >>The supporting document for this request can be found here: >> >>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/ > > I'm one of the authors of this RFC and support the change. > > ADSP was basically an experiment that failed. It has no significant > deployment, and the problem it was supposed to solve is now being > addressed in other ways. I oppose to the change as proposed, and support the explanation called for by John Klensin instead. Two arguments: 1) The harm Barry exemplifies in the request --incompatibility with mailing list posting-- is going to be a feature of at least one of the other ways addressing that problem. Indeed, "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it", and the explanation is needed to make history known. 2) A possible fix for ADSP is explained by John Levine himself: http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf-dkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx/msg16969.html I'm not proposing to mention it along with the explanation, but fixing is not the same as moving to historic. It seems that it is just a part of RFC 5617, DNS records, that we want to move. Ale