On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, wayne wrote:
In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0512080338550(_dot_)19913(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
I also received the answer to my appeal. IESG basicly agrees that use
of Resent fields is not compatible with standards but considers that
is not enough to not publish the draft for EXPERIMENTAL status and
instead chooses to add [yet another] note about it:
This is good news, I guess. SenderID can't be made a standard without
critical changes to the PRA.
Or changes to RFC2822 standard ...
I'm however concerned that IESG chose to bless experiment that is well
known to be incompatible with standards (and with another experiment for
that matter) when they could have requested changes (such as use of
different field name) to address the issue. Shows how much bias there
really is when IESG is faced with large vendor pressuring them.
I'll try to research this topic more to see if there were similar
circumstances when Internet-wide experiment was approved that was
well known to be incompatible with standard. If there were not,
the issue may need to be brought up to IAB.
On the downside, the IESG seems to think that this warning about
SenderID belongs in the SPF spec, which will probably just confuse the
issue between SPF and SenderID some more.
I already emailed Brian in response that this note is in regards of
the issues with 3 SID draft but it does not affect SPF on its own.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com