On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>
wrote:
I oppose to the change as proposed, and support the explanation called
for by John Klensin instead. Two arguments:
1) The harm Barry exemplifies in the request --incompatibility with
mailing list posting-- is going to be a feature of at least one
of the other ways addressing that problem. Indeed, "those who
don't know history are destined to repeat it", and the explanation
is needed to make history known.
Ample discussion of the problems exists in RFCs, most notably RFC 6377. A
simple solution to your concern would be to modify the writeup to reference
what's written there.
John Klensin's proposal, however, is to write up and publish a short RFC
that makes the state change and possibly the "Historic" request, so that
the two things (status change and pointers to details) are in one, more
obvious, place.
2) A possible fix for ADSP is explained by John Levine himself:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org/msg16969.html
I'm not proposing to mention it along with the explanation, but
fixing is not the same as moving to historic. It seems that it
is just a part of RFC 5617, DNS records, that we want to move.
To me, that post says ADSP is best implemented as a locally-configured
list of domains for which ADSP should be enforced. That may be the better
solution, but then there's no protocol for the IETF to document, because
nothing is interoperating. I don't believe this is an argument for
prolonging ADSP itself.
-MSK