https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi?command=view_minute&id=321
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Minutes of the May 26, 2005 IESG Teleconference
...
3.2.2 Returning Item
o Three document ballot - 1 of 1
- draft-lyon-senderid-core-01.txt
Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail (Experimental)
- draft-lyon-senderid-pra-01.txt
Purported Responsible Address in E-Mail Messages (Experimental)
- draft-katz-submitter-01.txt
SMTP Service Extension for Indicating the Responsible
Submitter of an E-mail Message (Experimental)
Token: Ted Hardie
The document remains under discussion by the IESG in order
to resolve points raised by Scott Hollenbeck, Russ Housley,
and David Kessens.*
-------------------------------------------------------------
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12542&rfc_flag=0
Name (Intended Status) Ver Shepherding AD Modified (EST)
draft-katz-submitter (Experimental) 01 Ted Hardie 2005-06-16
draft-lyon-senderid-core (Experimental) 01 Ted Hardie 2005-06-16
draft-lyon-senderid-pra (Experimental) 01 Ted Hardie 2005-06-16
Comment Log
Date Version Comment
2005-06-16 01 [david] [Ballot Position Update]
Position for David Kessens has been changed to Abstain from Discuss by
David Kessens
2005-06-15 01 [sah] [Ballot Position Update]
Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to Abstain from Discuss
by Scott Hollenbeck
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1573&filename=draft-lyon-senderid-core
Last Call to expire on:
Yes No-Objection Discuss Abstain
Brian Carpenter [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ted Hardie [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Sam Hartman [ ] [ ] [ . ] [ X ]
Scott Hollenbeck [ ] [ ] [ . ] [ X ]
Russ Housley [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ]
David Kessens [ ] [ ] [ . ] [ X ]
Allison Mankin [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Jon Peterson [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Mark Townsley [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Margaret Wasserman [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
"Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs are
needed for approval.
[Also new IESG Note has been added see **]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Count for SID -
Total ADs: 13
Abstain: 3
Total non-recused ADs: 10
Need for pass: 2/3 of 10 = 6.6 -> 7
Total Pass Votes: 5
of above - Yes Votes: 1
of above - No Objection Votes: 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=search_list&search_job_owner=0&search_group_acronym=&search_status_id=&search_cur_state=&sub_state_id=6&search_filename=spf-classic&search_rfcnumber=&search_area_acronym=&search_button=SEARCH
Name (Intended Status) Ver Shepherding AD Modified (EST)
draft-schlitt-spf-classic (Experimental) 01 Ted Hardie 2005-06-16
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1599&filename=draft-schlitt-spf-classic
Last Call to expire on:
Yes No-Objection Discuss Abstain
Brian Carpenter [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bill Fenner [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Ted Hardie [ ] [ ] [ X ] [ ]
Sam Hartman [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Scott Hollenbeck [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Russ Housley [ ] [ X ] [ . ] [ ]
David Kessens [ ] [ ] [ ] [ X ]
Allison Mankin [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Jon Peterson [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Mark Townsley [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Margaret Wasserman [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Bert Wijnen [ ] [ X ] [ ] [ ]
Alex Zinin [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
"Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs are
needed for approval.
[Also previously infamous RFC-Editor Note has been removed!
and new IESG Note Added - see **]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Count for SID -
Total ADs: 13
Abstain: 1
Total non-recused ADs: 12
Need for pass: 2/3 of 12 = 8
Total Pass Votes: 6
of above - Yes Votes: 0
of above - No Objection Votes: 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
** - Ne IESG Note:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1573&filename=draft-lyon-senderid-core
...
IESG Note
"The following documents (draft-schlitt-spf-classic, draft-katz-submitter,
draft-lyon-senderid-core, draft-lyon-senderid-pra) are published
simultaneously as Experimental RFCs, although there is no general
technicalconsensus and efforts to reconcile the two approaches have
failed. As such these documents have not received full IETF review and
are published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches asthey were
considered in the MARID working group.
The IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and
cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach
and concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG believes that documenting
the different approaches does less harm than not documenting them.
The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two
approaches during the two years following publication, in order that a
community consensus can be reached in the future."
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net