Spencer Dawkins wrote:
of course, the idea of the IESG "policing" anything that
happens on the Internet has to be kind of silly, given that
two consenting endpoints can send just about anything to
each other, especially above the IP layer, and our obvious
lack of any enforcement mechanism.
Of course. OTOH these are RfCs submitted through the IETF,
one of them intended to be a PS, and initiating what passes
as an internal (= IETF, non-WG) "last call", and it was as
ready for a proper "IETF last call" including Bruce's famous
reviews and other obstacles as "we" (SPF) could get it.
If it really covers 80% of AOL's inbound mail that's a rather
big "experiment" if you ask me, and about 750,000 domains
and an unknown (more than four) number of independent and
(claiming to be) interoperable SPF implementations is also
a bit more than a mere prototype.
if the IESG helps experiments avoid gratuitous conflicts,
that is wonderful - but for more than that, the IESG is
working very hard just to get the STANDARD protocols out :-)
It's their privilege to decide about the status. It's my
privilege to think that "experimental" for SPF was foolish.
But that's beside the point for the senderid-appeal.
Bye, Frank
http://mid.gmane.org/42B4624D(_dot_)5086(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf