Alessandro Vesely <vesely@xxxxxxx> wrote: >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. That's not a fix for ADSP. It's an alternative to it. ADSP failed. It's time to move on. Scott K