Over the past two weeks I've seen two kinds of posts to this mailing list:
1) "Here are some technical/legal issues I have with the last call specs,
can we ammend the spec or come up with a well-known workaround?"
2) "I refuse to accept Sender ID for reason X, I vote we dump it and
standardize SPF."
If people saying the latter would state their reason and then be done I
wouldn't be getting so frustrated, but the "standardize SPF" comments are
what really make this process difficult. There is no either-or in this
discussion.
As the chairs have indicated, we are to be discussing Sender ID on its
technical/legal/real-world merits. If the group decides to /not/ move
forward and submit the Sender ID drafts to the IESG for whatever reason,
fine, that's the choice of the group. No-one here should be under the
impression that scuttling Sender ID at this time will give SPF Classic any
fast track through the standards process. Sender ID and SPF are not
equivalent standards and can not be considered as alternatives to each
other.
I look forward to debating SPF Classic, CSV, MPR, BATV, etc etc etc AT
WHATEVER POINT THE CHAIRS DEEM APPROPRIATE, but this is not that time.
Saying that you want to scuttle Sender ID simply because you prefer SPF is
non-constructive to this group. In fact, the longer these debates get
drawn out the longer we are prevented from constructively discussing
other approaches which you may prefer!
-Rand