william(at)elan.net wrote:
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.
[...]
the issue may need to be brought up to IAB.
Of course. It's the mother of all process failures if there
ever was a process failure. But IMHO you can't say that they
"blessed" PRA, it's nearer to "cursed".
Maybe it's a serious bug in RFC 2026, we can't tell before the
IAB investigated this issue.
Bye, Frank
-------
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