Hi Doug,
At 12:22 02-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as
we have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's position, "we have no
intention of dealing with this unless we're forced to?"
This is an individual opinion. It has been mentioned on the SPFBIS
mailing list that:
If someone provides an argument together with a good explanation it is not
going to be ignored no matter how vocal other SPFBIS WG participants are.
The SPFBIS WG Chairs mentioned that:
"There has been an enormous number of messages lately discussing the
planned deprecation of the SPF RRTYPE and whether TXT is an appropriate
thing to use and if it is whether the SPF use of it is ok."
and
"If you are tempted to say more, we ask that you identify the specific
point that you think has not been addressed and talk only about
that. Other arguments have been made clearly, we believe, and do not
need additional repetition."
My intent is not "I have no intention of dealing with this unless I
am forced to".
I'm fully sympathetic with your collective desire to move the
process forward, and finish your document. The problem is that as it
stands the document contains a course of action that is not only bad
on its face, but contrary to a basic architectural principle adopted
4 years ago in 5507.
I have read RFC 5507. My desire is not to move the draft forward no
matter what. If I merely wanted to finish the draft I would have
done a cursory review.
Several WG participants, including you if I am not mistaken, have
attempted to hash out the issue in the working group. It's not that
there weren't any good arguments. A Last Call can sometimes help
bring in fresh perspectives.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy