Mark Lentczner <markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> wrote:
On July 2nd, Marshall wrote:
i think it would be fine for the csv design team to continue to refine
their specifications; however, in order to help the working group --
as a whole focus -- the co-chairs ask that csv-related emails be
minimal on the mailing list for a few weeks.
I have therefore kept all my comments and thoughts on CSV off list.
It is certainly appropriate to comment directly to the authors in
order to honor this reuest. (And I will note that Mark has done so.)
Doug Otis' posts of the last week, especially his most recent for
today, are mostly discussion of CSV, and why CSV is better than
Sender-ID or any other proposal.
1. Marshall requested "a few weeks". Dave Crocker and I are willing to
put off discussion a small bit longer; but I can't blame Doug for
feeling the request may have expired.
2. Doug really isn't "discussing CSV", though he keeps mentioning it.
He's mostly disussing what he sees as failings of the various flavors
of SPF.
3. Regardless of Marshall's request, it is not helpful (IMHO) to censor
ourselves to the extent of failing to post anything that mentions
CSV.
Is CSV now open for discussion again?
I don't believe CSV has ever _not_ been open for discussion; but
probably _extensive_ discussion of it is better done with the authors
privately for another day or so.
Of course, YMMV, and I fully intend to respect requests of the chairs.
If so, I have a fair bit to say, especially on the issue of CSV vs.
the other proposals.
IMHO, it would be helpful to discuss these issues on-list.
Of course, I (and the other authors, so far as I know) will be happy
to receive comments off-list as well.
Chairs?
It's not really fair to ask the chairs to rule on this until the close
of tomorrow afternoon's session...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>