In the interests of process, I am forwarding to the list a
note I sent earlier today to the WG Chairs concerning the
subject.
The body of the note read as follows:
Andy,
I trust this note finds you and yours well.
This note is further to my two messages concerning the
subject found at:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03597.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03615.html
Having reflected on matters, it seems best that we not
clutter the situation further at this stage with a best
current practice document, but rather allow the Sender-ID
drafts to proceed.
In my view the issue of a best current practice document
can be raised and dealt with once the Sender-ID drafts are
approved by the IETF MARID Working Group.
Once Sender-ID is approved by the WG, subject to proper
procedure the issue of a Best current practice document can
be raised and discussed at that time.
The note had the following post script:
P.S. Although I am formally withdrawing my concerns, I do
not propose to send a formal message to the list, unless
you feel this is appropriate. I say this only as others may
wish to pursue the discussion further at this stage.
Based on guidance received from Marshall to whom the note
was copied, as the reader can see, I have sent the full
message to the list.
Why? The WG works by consensus. The WG Chairs can best
gauge consensus from comments made to the public list.
Accordingly, if the WG consensus is that a BCP is needed
concerning the issues raised in the noted messages and
these should be dealt with at this juncture instead of
after Sender-ID approval then such is the proper course.
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004