On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Ted Hardie wrote:
A sponsoring AD always has a ballot position of YES when they bring
a document to the IESG.
I don't think it is always. I will check datatracker more but I've
definitely seen no objections from everyone including sponsoring AD
for some documents (especially individual submissions for information
or experimental track).
As was documented on the IETF list response to Wayne, there was no support
for at this time for publishing the spf draft as a Proposed Standard (to
be clear: the IESG was asked this question at a telechat, and no AD
thought it was appropriate).
Could you be more specific on which day this telechat happened and if
the logs/brief summary for it are available?
The IESG is currently considering moving forward on the basis of an IESG note
suggested by David Kessens. Once the IESG agrees that the document set
is ready, the sponsoring AD position will go back to YES.
...
The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and
cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach
I'd appreciate if you discussed more rational that went behind your note
and its text. I do understand that IETF does not wish to take position on
if authenticating PRA or MAILFROM identities is better choice for email.
This is not new and its one of the reason that MARID probably failed as
such decision may not have been something that we could easily find
consensus on. But it seems to me taking not position on above is different
then the note that you propose to add to the drafts.
Also it appears to me the IESG criteria for when evaluating documents
(especially for experimental status) is not necessarily to see if certain
approach is good or bad for internet future but more importantly to make
sure that proposal would not directly create problems for something else
being done at IETF and most important to make sure that the proposal does
not cause people to violate existing standards. So is my understanding
about this being part of IESG evaluation wrong?
There has been a lot of discussion of this draft, and this short summary no
doubt misses some points, but I hope it clarifies the current state at
least somewhat
It clarified some things but as often fr short summaries it raised more
questions. I'd appreciate if you could find more time to discuss the
drafts and how IESG evaluation of them went.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net