On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 20:11 +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Julian Mehnle wrote:
here's a carefully considered draft for the IAB appeal. Sorry for the
delay! Please review it soon!
One last draft before I submit it to the IAB. Please send any criticism
within the next 90min.
I have a suggestion:
I would suggest moving the following sentence from point (1) into its
own point (3) (and rewording it appropriately):
|The conflict arose only after the IESG asked for individual
|draft submissions from the SPF and Sender ID authors and
|draft-lyon-senderid-core-00[5] was submitted (which for the
|first time included the re-interpretation of "v=spf1" records
|for the PRA identity), and accepting such a submission despite
|the prior MARID WG consensus[6] that "v=spf1" should not be
|used for checking of PRA or other unexpected identities
|clearly violates the ultimate goal of producing reliable
|standards.
I have suggested wording for point (3) below.
Granted, I've worded things very verbosely--feel free to change in any
way, (or ignore this suggestion if you think it's not appropriate.)
(Also, some points could possibly be completely deleted.)
Here is my suggested point #3:
------------------------------
It should be noted that there had in fact been clear consensus within
the MARID WG [6] that "v=spf1" should not be used for checking of PRA or
other unexpected identities.
In other words, by the time the working group was unexpectantly and
unilaterally closed by the IESG (?), it was well-understood that this
conflict should not exist, namely that v=spf1 records should not be
interpreted outside of their longstanding meaning, (namely the meaning
most recently documented within draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.)
It was only after the working group was officially closed, drafts
solicited, and working group members no longer able to officially debate
the technical issue of re-use that had long been established, (much less
other technical issues that had been unilaterally been declared by the
WG chairs to be off-limits), that draft-lyon-senderid-core-00[5] was
submitted, which for the first time included the re-interpretation of
"v=spf1" records for the PRA identity.
Again, this was the first time this conflict arose.
Thus a draft causing a conflict for the first time was accepted despite
the fact that the working group members no longer had an official voice
and despite the fact that the conflict was against official WG
consensus.
So not only was draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 accepted by the WG chairs
despite a conflict with previous working group consensus and without
allowance for official working group discussion, (as the working group
was closed), but according to the earlier quote that:
"the conflicts between the two [drafts] on
this and other points are part of why the IESG is
publishing them 'AS IS'",
the WG Chairs' incorrect (in our view) acceptance of the flawed v=spf1
record re-use in draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 was actually part of their
reasoning to publish draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 "AS-IS".
While this appears to us to be circular reasoning, in any event it does
not appear to us to justify a decision to publish
draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 "AS-IS".
--
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