In <20050129171245(_dot_)CC20016CC4(_at_)mail(_dot_)nitros9(_dot_)org> "Alan
DeKok" <aland(_at_)ox(_dot_)org> writes:
Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
You never allowed this to happen here. You always pressed for
2822 and the IMHO broken Sender-ID concept, and when that failed
you let the A-D close this WG without prior consultation.
The chairs asked for consensus from the group. The consensus was to
look at 2822 and Sender-Id.
Once that happened, further consensus did not occur.
No.
The chairs/AD asked for consensus from the group. The consensus was to
look at the 2821 identities first and then look at the 2822
identities. The charter promised that once this decision was reached,
that all further discussions on other identities would be ruled out of
scope.
This did not happen.
The chairs/AD, at the interim meeting, decided to ignore this and
switched to 2822 with SenderID and the PRA as the only option. This
complete change of direction was never confirmed on the mailing list,
despite the IETF rules on the subject.
(Ok, CSV was left on the table, to be considered after SenderID.
That, however, completely ignored SPF's 2821.HELO checking, and all
forms of 2821.MAILFROM checking.)
MARID showed just how much more important political considerations are
in making decisions than technical considerations. The end run that
the IETF is making, right now, around the technical problems with
SenderID is just another great example. The SenderID I-Ds have now
been sent off to a secret directorate for review, with no place to
make public comments. It is not even clear if the IESG will allow an
IETF wide last-call for the SenderID I-Ds before they are promoted to
being RFCs.
But, the people on this MARID mailing list don't even care about
that. They would much rather discuss the SPF-classic I-Ds, something
that was never adopted by the MARID working group.
-wayne