-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
I would suggest moving the following sentence from point (1) into its
own point (3) (and rewording it appropriately): [...]
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:
[...]
I really liked the explicitness of your wording, but it was just way too
verbose for the appeal. Also, an additional item #3 just didn't fit the
intended structure of the appeal (#1: technical level, #2: operational/
procedural level).
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".
I had thought about this "circular reasoning" but came to the conclusion
that it wasn't really all that circular. As far as I understand it, the
IESG's prime directive was not to take sides in a political conflict, so
(1) they had to publish either both or none of SPF/S-ID (with a strong
tendency towards publishing, after the MARID debacle), and (2) they could
not impose the deletion of the "v=spf1" PRA re-use upon S-ID. Since they
wanted to publish both but could not get rid of the conflict, they decided
that this was one more reason to go for Experimental and let the drafts'
authors fight it out among themselves.
I seriously hope the IAB won't go along with this. The least they could do
is to show the guts and not publish _either_ of the specifications. (Of
course even such an outcome would probably indicate their desire to remain
politically neutral at all costs.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD6nT7wL7PKlBZWjsRAr4zAJ4xlLqYE55xNP1s+ajUUoV/VuKlxACgqaEs
ykCcQFWU+70GTXs51NGnX2s=
=ZCmh
-----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