I'm a bit late here; sorry: IESG telechat day, so things were very busy.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
It doesn't help that ADSP's author actively wanted to subvert it.
As far as I can tell, DMARC is warmed over ADSP with a different set of
participants to claim credit for their original ideas.
Note well:
If anyone has technical comments, data collection, or any other stuff
that's relevant to the ADs' judgment of whether moving ADSP to
Historic status is the right thing, those comments are welcome here.
Comments about the people involved are not welcome, and will not be
tolerated. On the IETF lists, I will be handing out 30-day
suspensions like travel-size toothpaste at a dentist's office in
response to further comments about who's asking for this, including
assertions of their motives, their qualifications, actions they did in
the past, or whatever.
Discussion of ADSP *ONLY*. No discussion of DMARC. No discussion of
people. No snideness. Just stop all that.
The only thing I will be considering, as this discussion proceeds and
as I analyze it, is what arguments have been made about ADSP, and
whether or not its spec should be classified as Historic.
Barry, Applications AD
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html