Julian,
not speaking for anyone but myself.....
one matter of principle:
are you of the opinion that the IESG should try to police which experiments
get run on the Internet by refusing to publish RFCs documenting
possibly-conflicting experments?
Both of these documents were published at the request of their authors. I
know that ways in which they could cause conflict were pointed out to the
authors, and that both authors upheld their requests to publish.
If you ask the IESG to assert the power to police this kind of experiment,
please make sure you will be happy with the result if they agree with
you.....
Harald
--On 25. august 2005 00:45 +0200 Julian Mehnle <julian(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net>
wrote:
I believe that draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 conflicts in a significant
aspect with draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, on which the former depends, and
which has also been approved by the IESG to be published as an
Experimental RFC.[2] The conflicting part of the Sender-ID specification
disrespects the substantial history the SPF specification has outside the
IETF. Through its decision, the IESG also ignores SPF's deployed base.[3]
And even if the IESG intends to run both of the specifications as an
experiment before deciding any further on how to proceed with them, the
publication of conflicting specifications is bound to disrupt these
experiments.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf