spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IAB appeal or not - please comment (Re: [spf-discuss] Re: [RFCState] <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02> has changed state)

2006-01-25 06:56:28
My input on the matter.

Concentrate on making SPF better. IETF, IAB, it doesn't matter.  You
don't have the lead cogs behind it, therefore it will never be taken
seriously by them.

However, by making SPF better, resolve whatever issues, extend the
protocol, then SPF will take care of itself. More people will learn
about it, check it out and use it.

Just imagine and look at how far it got without the IETF/IAB.  All this
effort has done for the last two years is slow down its progress and
also fed the nay-sayers, who no matter what you say or do, they will
always have a negative and often incorrect opinion about it.  Just keep
in mind the loudest nay-sayers also have their own interest in mind that
will help their cause.  Then you have DKIM coming, well, I found it
surprising they are murdering this good spec too.  But overall, I see
this as a behind the scene stepping stone to get to CSV/DNA and A/R
business. The authors just don't know it yet.

So while it might be nice and sweet and a good pat on the back to get
IETF/IAB endorsement, putting all your eggs in this basket is just to
going to further slow down SPF progress.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com




----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Shewmaker" <mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com>
Newsgroups: spf.-.sender.policy.framework.discussion
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: IAB appeal or not - please comment (Re: [spf-discuss] Re:
[RFCState] <draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02> has changed state)


On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 17:12 -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:

However time is an issue now and IAB
appeal will definitely delay publication. Something to think
about...

Okay, then what would a delay now mean as far as helping or hurting
spf?

Let's start with the assumption, (based on the interesting wording in
the previous appeal response about problems in the Sender ID draft),
that Sender ID has problems that would prevent it from becoming a
proposed standard even after the two year wait.  I believe that was a
common interpretation of the appeal response.

So, that interpretation would imply that without an appeal, the
following would happen:

1.  Both drafts attain experimental status very soon.

2.  The re-use conflict wouldn't be allowed in a proposed
    standard, and since SenderID is re-using SPF records,
    SenderID would have to change.

3.  Even if it conflicting standards were be allowed, (which
    would be insane), there are other, unrelated problems in
    the Sender ID draft which would prevent it from attaining
    proposed standard status, but the spf draft doesn't have
    such other problems, so the Sender ID draft would be blocked
    and require edits, while the spf draft needn't be.

So if we just waited two years, the problem will go away on its own,
if
we're reading the implications in the wording of the previous appeal
correctly.

But that's just looking at the technical aspects, as if we can safely
assume there are no other political forces going on that could cause
the
issue of how the drafts could be elevated to proposed standard to
become
moot.

So to me the main question is whether having that conflict remain
throughout the two-year experimental stage would be harmful to SPF,
(from a political sense, not from technical sense), when compared with
having to deal with a delay that might remove the conflict from the
get-go.

If both drafts are given experimental status, that would mean that:

  o  We can point people to an RFC (experimental) standard,
     and gain deployment because of that.

  o  Microsoft can point people to an RFC (experimental)
     standard, and gain deployment because of that.

However, for which standard is the RFC (experimental) blessing more
important?

I'm thinking that in the SPF case, if we suddenly had fantastic PR,
we'd
have a greater increase in deployment as compared with suddenly having
an experimental RFC.

But in the SenderID case, I'm thinking that overcoming the problem of
a
lack of an RFC would allow for a greater increase in Sender ID
deployment much more than would, say, a great increase in PR.  If
nothing else, it might mean Microsoft could put SenderID functionality
in a newer version of exchange as default behavior and point to an
(experimental) RFC allowing it, and the conflict--thus opening a can
of
worms, as SenderID has inherent problems of its own in addition to the
problems related to the re-use conflict between SPF and SenderID.

So I'm starting to think that skipping the additional appeal and
shortening a delay to experimental status would give SPF deployment a
boost that could be exceeded by simply having better PR, (granted,
exeeded more by both an experimental RFC *and* better PR), but a
hinderence over time as SenderID is deployed and infects SPF with it's
conflict issues.

##############################################################
###Begin conspiracy alert:  (This isn't something I *think* I
###                         believe, but it's had me thinking)
###

One thing that's recently crossed my mind is that we've all been
assuming that Microsoft truely wants SenderID to succeed.  I think we
should at least consider the opposite from time to time, (although in
general I don't like trying to explain things with conspiracy
theories.)

That is, what if they really want to do something else, something
that's
not Sender ID (or spf), but yet something that wouldn't work well if
spf
was out there.

In that case, they would have a reason to try to slow down SPF
deployment.  One way of doing that would be to confuse the market with
a
competing, inferior solution.

Having that that competing, inferior solution "blessed" as
experimental,
and having it compete with SPF so that both solutions get tied in
knots,
namely the spf one they don't want, and the sacrificial
non-solution==SenderID, would help keep the options to this "other"
solution open.

(I don't like conspiracy ideas in general, but this one gives at least
some rationale for otherwise seemingly pointless behavior.  Of course,
never attribute to malice..)
###
###End conspiracy alert:
##############################################################

So basically I wonder if having the draft blessed really quickly is as
helpful to us as we think, and if it might actually be more harmful
than
a delay inherent in an IAB appeal, (that as Frank pointed out, would
be
judged by an entirely different group than what has controlled the
process thus far.)

Any thoughts, or injection of sanity?  :-)

--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com

-------
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


-------
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

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