From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2(_at_)infradead(_dot_)org]
On Sun, 2005-01-09 at 19:29 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
SPF has generated a very significant degree of open source and
industry support. If after rejecting that proposal the IETF
endorses a
rival proposal that has no support from any quarter the
reaction would
be savage.
I don't think this is really the right forum in which to be
discussing SPF. SPF has insurmountable technical flaws which
render it unsuitable for IETF endorsement; we are supposed to
be exploring the more viable alternatives.
You didn't seem to think MARID was the proper place to discuss SPF. If this
is not the right place to discuss SPF then it is certainly not the right
place for the faction that disrupted MARID to bring up CSV.
The reason I don't think IETF is the right place to discuss MASS is because
of the behavior of the CSV faction.
As for the 'insurmountable problems' with SPF I have never once seen the CSV
faction manage to give a coherent explanation (note this is NOT an
invitation for another attempt). If the problems do exist then they must
either be fixable or affect CSV equally.