so document it in a RFC - not a big task if the info is already there
future potential users might be able to find a RFC - they would not be able to
find a string of messages
on a mailing list
fwiw - this is not a new issue for me - going back to RFC 1923 I have felt that
it is a must to tell
people why such a change is made
Scott
Scott Bradner
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
+1 617 495 3864
1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
Cambridge, MA 02138
www.harvard.edu/huit
On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
On 11/20/2013 2:48 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
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,
Before offering conspiracy theories, perhaps you could read (or read more
carefully) the considerable IETF mailing list transcript that explains very
thoroughly why the protocol should be deprecated.
And if that's too much effort, try the link that Barry provided:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
And since even that seems to take too much effort a concise summary, yet
again: The protocol isn't used. Someone trying to rely on a protocol that
isn't used will suffer somewhere between zero and negative utility.
As for dereliction... wow. Perhaps you can explain why the existing and
easily-searchable public archive is insufficient and the effort to produce an
obscure RFC that will likely never be read is better?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net