On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
Basically the IESG decided that accurate documentation of the running code
is more important than documenting something that does not exist, and maybe
never will exist.
That's certainly an understandable tradeoff to make, and it gets back to the
more philosophical role of the IETF: should it be OK to document even
disrupting running code, or should the IETF "just say no" (and then we'd
likely have no documentation of the running code whatsoever).
What you're saying has merit but if this were purely documentation of
the running code then document would go as INFORMATIONAL RFC and then
I have to agree that bar low enough and it makes more sense to document
a [bad] system then not document it at all.
However SID drafts are going for EXPERIMENTAL status and are NOT purely
documentation of running code but rather IETF sanctioned internet-wide
experiment with possible intention to move to standard if experiment
is successful. In my view, in this case approving experiment with known
bad behavior or that is non-compliant with existing standards makes more
harm them good for IETF.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
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