-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
My attempt to summarize the debate.
If you count heads, it is 8 to 5 for the appeal, or 7 to 4 not counting ScottK.
ScottK is on both sides (as am I - call us flip-floppers). However, the
pro-appeal group also seems to feel more strongly - animated by the moral
rightness of the cause. The con group seems to be mostly cynical about the
process - best represented by Hector, "Anyway, it is probably ok to appeal to
get it "on record." But if you didn't succeed before, what has changed to
make it succeed now?"
It seems to me that making the appeal is the rough concensus. However,
I wish there was more discussion of the "Third way" - the protest email.
Pro:
- ---
Mike (DotZero) "SPF has everything to gain and SID has everything to lose by a
continued open and public debate. Conversely, SID has everything to
gain (regardless of the merits of the approach) at this point by
continuing to co-opt spf=v1 records without the SPF folks showing some
backbone. They will outmarket and out PR SPF at every turn...Every additional
spf=v1 record published is a draw for SPF and SID. Every v2 record is a win for
SID/MS. That is a recipe for an SPF loss in the marketplace."
- ---
Frank "Strongly disagree. Having them on public record is already a
very good thing. I've often used the URLs of the IESG appeals
directory or of my HTML version of Julian's mail in discussions.
Without that it would be very difficult to fight Doug's verdict
"SPF is defunct because of the PRA re-use" (or similar)."
...
Our job is to get it right, and to help the IETF to get it right where their
leadership went wrong.
- ---
Mark Shewmaker "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."
- ---
Terry "What I see as a concern is the abuse AKA "reuse" of the SPF record for
PRA processing. That *does* have the potential to harm SPF, even if mostly
minor, can be used by the fudders to knock the wind out of SPF. "
o SPF has been delayed time and again by PR/PRA/MARID/etc, a little bit more is
not going to change much
o SPF is threatened by the misuse/reuse not just because of the (occasional)
misinterpretation, but that failures of PRA's broken functionality will be seen
as SPF failure unless PRA is forced to use its own records
- ---
John Martin "I strongly favor the IAB appeal. I find the arguments
presented favoring the appeal to be persuasive while the arguments against seem
to me to be largely based upon supposing the worst possible effects of outcomes
that may or may not materialize or that may materialize without the appeal. I
believe that the appeal would still be the thing to have done even if the worst
outcomes envisioned were to materialize as a result."
- ---
Constantine "I don't think that a second appeal (or 'an appeal of the
appeal', as Frank puts it) means 'loosing the battle'; on the contrary, I think
that a lack thereof means one's acknowledgement of the defeat by the MS Corp of
the SPF-Classic specification.
Microsoft has not won yet, don't hand out your arguments and continue to
struggle!"
- ---
Jeff MacDonald "If by losing the battle you mean SPF doesn't get published as
an Experimental RFC, then yes, because it is the right thing to do. I want the
books to show how corporate interests are favored no matter how technically
flawed they may be.
And if we do lose experimental status, is that really all that bad? Do we not
have adopters without this?"
- ---
ScottK "So, that said, having started down this road, I think we ought to
finish it.
Although JFC's appeal that Frank mentioned was not technical, it clearly took
some effort to parse the admin RFCs to come to the conclusion they did. So, I
think Frank has a point about how long this will take.
Finally, I think it will be good for the IETF/IESG to have an IAB ruling on are
experiments allowed to break standards."
- -----------------
Con:
- ---
Hector "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...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."
- ---
Wayne "If the vote for the IAB appeal had come up in the current (soon to be
previous) council, I would have argued against it and voted 'no'. I
just don't think it will be productive. I don't think the IETF will
want to make "slap" Microsoft like that."
- ---
Andrew "The other email vendors have mostly dropped SenderID for almost the
same reasons that we have dropped it. It has unknown Microsoft IP encumbrances
and, frankly, PRA offers little to no value after you have received the spam
over a digital signature method like DomainKeys....I think this leads to a
natural marketing campaign for SPF. SPF is the front line defense against
forgery that helps DomainKeys (by reducing server load) authenticate the email
domain. In other words, sell to our strengths - we hit forgery. Ignore
SenderID. It is DoA. In many ways, SPF has already won. Many email servers,
commercial and open source, already support or their plug-in models allow SPF
into the mail processing stream. There is little infrastructure that needs
further development. We just need to get the experimental RFC out the door and
get on with business."
- ---
Mark "So, I, for one, know I will be looking forward to hearing people
explain why they feel a new appeal will succeed this time. For, while I do not
look upon the first appeal as a waste of time, I think that, without 'material'
changes in the field, expecting a different outcome, just for the sake of it,
probably will be a waste of time."
- ---
ScottK "I would suggest no IAB appeal. We got as good as we are going to get
from the first round of appeals. The 'cost' of the time lost exceeds the
potential gain of an appeal. We need to get an RFC and move on."
- -----------------
- --
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBQ+gda4JnzZxkHLLFAQHh0Qf/QcAqxFjN9RlqiMIrxRMF7xtmKB/1g47n
9PxqrZcWFLAHChojkD9MdpVsRz0R+Cm8mnkm3Gx7XsP9grWy6oxxScTC/57Z4J6M
W16sFbG+qKmdz+GrjuDpc6Egk8Wjl8We3kv9/Sl5uekKbjSHh8GXOy21JVTMXdqc
ZRHwNUCmmFMHaxxCbgmgamP/NW9J97UAb3OgtccghV5v+v4f1Y3Hzv7YmyXSvCR7
SnizbbjHdnWzEuDbwRvxcIcs/ywJSy8nJGfm0T5ofCKYMa4m5JsyS9cQzKyY/9nj
YZsMNUE8OPjVKqc16JRsNTG9fFYKPvwHEyFrBrfdv44N8GJ1ldGm7Q==
=Vs7d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
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