spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: URGENT: Community Position on SenderID

2004-12-08 08:27:53


[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of Frank 
Ellermann

Hannah Schroeter wrote:

 [STD 10]
Obsoleted by RFC2821
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, 2821 claims to obsolete 821.  But the official standard 
is still 821.  I'm not yet sure how this "IETF standard 
process" is supposed to work, maybe RfC 2821 is blocked in 
its progress because it has some problems - like forgeries 
and forwarding.

The IETF process is broken, this is an acknowledged problem. The
unacknowledged problem being that its an old boys club that is run to
priorities that bear no relationship to the priorities of the Internet
users. IPv6 is a huge priority for VeriSign and others, for most individual
Internet users it is as irrelevant as whether their electricity is 110V or
240v, 50Hz or 60Hz.

The acknowledged problem here is that even though RFC 2821 has been subject
to a lot more scrutiny and is unambiguously 'better' than 821 there is no
practical way for it to progress on standards track beyond its current
status. Even HTTP is not a 'standard' according to the IETF.

I don't think that the issue you raise is even on the radar screen any more
than an association of power generators would be interested with the problem
of setting standards for light bulbs. Anyone who has used the Edison screw
fitting after being used to Swan bayonet has a nasty shock (possibly
litteraly). The Edison screw works loose over time, a problem that has been
known and discussed for a century but never addressed in the US.

It's a whole culture clash between folk who cannot see beyond the edge of
the TCP stack and the folk who build applications that take all that for
granted.

For the time being the folk who are interested in the bottom end of the
stack appear to have the magic stick of power. Fortunately there are others
and it is even possible to make them if necessary.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>