On 02/03/06, Leslie Daigle <leslie(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com> wrote:
On February 8, 2006, The IAB received an appeal from Julian Mehnle
appealing the IESG decision to publish draft-lyon-senderid-core as an
Experimental RFC. According to the procedures in Section 6.5.2 of RFC
2026, the IAB has reviewed the situation and issues the following
response.
1. Summary of IAB Response
The appeal is denied and the IESG's decision is upheld.
2. Background
After the termination of the MARID WG, the IESG approved both
draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02 and draft-lyon-senderid-core as
Experimental RFCs. Both RFCs were to bear the following note:
"The following documents (draft-schlitt-spf-classic,
draft-katz-submitter, draft-lyon-senderid-core,
draft-lyon-senderid-pra) are published simultaneously as
Experimental RFCs, although there is no general technical consensus
and efforts to reconcile the two approaches have failed. As such
these documents have not received full IETF review and are
published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches as they were
considered in the MARID working group.
The problem is that they ARE NOT published AS-IS to document the
different approaches as they were considered (and _documented_) in the
MARID working group. This IESG statement clearly violates the reality,
just look at what was presented in the appeal:
<<The conflict arose only after the IESG asked for individual draft
submissions from the SPF and Sender ID authors and
draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was submitted (which for the first time
included the re-interpretation of "v=spf1" records for the PRA
identity). Accepting such a submission despite the prior consensus of
the MARID WG[5] (which was closed afterwards) that "v=spf1" should not
be used for checking of PRA clearly violates the ultimate goal of
producing reliable standards.>>
<<It is also worth noting that at the time the MARID WG was closed,
the then-current Sender ID specification
draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03[18] did not include the re-use of
"v=spf1" records for PRA checking. This was only introduced in the
individual submission draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 [19] in October
2004. Also did Microsoft's record generation wizards generate only
"v=spf2.0/pra" records until the end of October[20,21], when they
began generating only "v=spf1" records.>>
I have not heard anyone question this issue with Sender ID that was
once again raised in the IAB appeal. Do you thus find it ethical and
professional to publish these RFCs with the note that does not reflect
the documented reality of the MARID WG?
If any note is to be included in the RFCs, it should be the one from
the appeal.
Cheers,
Constantine.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com