ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please)

2004-06-14 22:52:42

On 6/11/2004 11:04 AM, wayne sent forth electrons to convey:

You guys are raising good and interesting points about both the pros
and cons of things like MTAMARK, but this is all irrelevant.  Since
the interim meeting, all 2821 proposals are now out of scope.
I'm sorry, but I WAS at the interim meeting. I believe that was NOT decided.
In which of the 13 items mentioned in the minutes is this?
Perhaps I was out of the room.

What Markus has said re. RFC 2418 / 3.3 is correct,
to which I should add that IMO, the minutes are not accurate regarding the hum - as I'd discussed with a chair, and IIRC, he said he's planning to revise in a new minutes version. See the email I just posted, Subject: Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR. I was there for the hum in question.

There are dealbreakers that SPF+CallerID hasn't faced yet. Dealbreakers that other proposals do not have.

On 6/11/2004 4:27 PM, william(at)elan.net sent forth electrons to convey:

[T]he current primary work is on SPF+CallerID ...
False.
From what I know of one of the IESG's members, SPF+CallerID is likely a 
non-starter, primarily for gross violation of the KISS principle.