Julian Mehnle wrote:
Under "NOTE WELL" that situation changes to "told you so".
Sure, but the question is: do we _want_ to tell our
subscribers that? I'm feeling very reluctant.
Well, do they know that this list has adopted RFC 3984 with
a decree claiming to be posted by Meng based on a "consensus"
(as far as a poster "Frank" is permitted to say "consensus") ?
FWIW, do the current moderators still know this ? I think
it's not noted on the Web site. Instead of adding a link to
RFC 3984 on the forum page adding a link to NOTE WELL would
take care of this.
For lists like "cosmogol" (Stephane's "finite state machine"),
"mass" (predecessor of what's now the DKIM list and WG),
"clear" (BATV + CSV, officially closed by Dave Crocker), etc.
almost nobody cares about this formality.
The "cosmogol" list is listed as "other list". And while
"clear" wasn't it had "ietf" in it's list ID and address.
Putting the SPF list on this "other list" page is a part of
what I consider as "promoting SPF". And it offers wiggle
room for future (potential) "IETF political" issues like
"do 4408bis in a proper WG, as individual submission, or
like xmpp.org (jabber) with liaisons"
For Cosmogol I proposed to arrange this with Lisa, and
that's apparently what Stephane did. I think the BoF was
a success - no WG yet, but still a success. DKIM needed
two BoFs. We can't go that way because we can't pay to
visit IETF meetings regularly (going once is pointless).
There are drafts about "winning friends in a standards
development organization" and "successful BOFs". Never
again will "they" take me again by a surprise as in the
unilateral termination of MARID.
Without that dirty trick we'd work on the Draft Standard
today instead of being stuck with this pseudo-experiment.
You wrote "changing the nature", do you have a clue
what it _is_ at the moment ?
Since no explicit agreement has been made, everyone has
copyright on their articles, probably with an implied
license to redistribute.
NOTE WELL turns "probably" to "definitely" wrt archiving
articles (and making those archives public). Otherwise
the copyright won't change under NOTE WELL, the IETF is
_religious_ about "individual participation", no matter
who pays for the time spent to write and post articles.
Everything else (quoting, etc.) is covered by fair use.
Yes, that's outside of whatever listbox etc. might claim.
In theory you could say that I'm not allowed to forward
an article posted by you here to another list (or rather
you can say whatever you wish also in practice, but it's
a theoretical case if you try to enforce it.)
Under NOTE WELL a contribution is a contribution, and
if you don't like me to forward your article to an IETF
list the IETF Trust - when you sue them to enforce your
view - would pull "told you so". I think it's harmless.
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/?list_id=735