it would seem to me to be a dereliction of duty to not publish a document that
says why such a change
is made -
if ADSP is dangerous then say so in a way that people can understand
but if it is just competition to another protocol it does not seem to paint
the IETF in a good light to
not let the market decide what technology to use - i.e., I would not support
the change
if it is just to benefit DMARC without there being a actual reason to not use
ADSP
Scott
On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Well, I'll answer for myself:
Not necessary. If someone wants to write a document, tho, I wouldn't
try to stop 'em.
Eliot
On 11/20/13 8:09 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
If someone is willing to write the document and explain why ADSP has
been moved to Historic, that's good for capturing lessons learned. I
don't think it's required for the status change, but a bonus.
Do you think that more than this is necessary?:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
I should, in particular, direct that question to John, as he's the one
who brought up the question of documenting why... so I am adding John
to the "To" here.
Barry