so document it in a RFC - not a big task if the info is already there future potential users might be able to find a RFC - they would not be able to find a string of messages on a mailing list fwiw - this is not a new issue for me - going back to RFC 1923 I have felt that it is a must to tell people why such a change is made Scott Scott Bradner Harvard University Information Technology Innovation & Architecture +1 617 495 3864 1350 Mass Ave., Room 760 Cambridge, MA 02138 www.harvard.edu/huit On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/20/2013 2:48 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> it would seem to me to be a dereliction of duty to not publish a document that says why such a change >> is made - >> >> if ADSP is dangerous then say so in a way that people can understand >> >> but if it is just competition to another protocol it does not seem to paint the IETF in a good light to >> not let the market decide what technology to use - i.e., I would not support the change >> if it is just to benefit DMARC without there being a actual reason to not use ADSP > > > Scott, > > Before offering conspiracy theories, perhaps you could read (or read more carefully) the considerable IETF mailing list transcript that explains very thoroughly why the protocol should be deprecated. > > And if that's too much effort, try the link that Barry provided: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/ > > And since even that seems to take too much effort a concise summary, yet again: The protocol isn't used. Someone trying to rely on a protocol that isn't used will suffer somewhere between zero and negative utility. > > As for dereliction... wow. Perhaps you can explain why the existing and easily-searchable public archive is insufficient and the effort to produce an obscure RFC that will likely never be read is better? > > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net