On 21 aug 2013, at 20:29, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:13 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been
published.
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many years
after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
Dave, I do not appreciate the tone of your message.
I explain as part of a last call of a message to the IETF mailing list why I
object to publication of an I-D as an RFC.
If the IESG comes to the conclusion that the document should be published fine.
If they say it should not. Fine.
That is the IETF process.
I should have staid on the DNS mailing list as I said originally, where I
promised people I should not discuss SPF anymore on the main IETF list because
I knew the pushback from you and a few others would be exactly like this. I was
convinced to give my view on SPF to the IETF list so that it was known
correctly to the last call process. A process I have always trusted and
believed it. And still trust and still believe in.
This is my last posting in this thread.
Patrik