RE: Sender-ID != SPF

>   Elsewhere in the RFC it is an acknowledged risk that an 
> individual can game the system with this approach.  That's 
> enough of red flag for me.

	No, elsewhere in the document (and I just quoted it on another email
10 minutes ago ironically) it noted that care should be taken when using
this approach to make sure that someone DOESN'T game the approach. In the
same paragraph it also mentions:

 "the need to retain rough consensus as the baseline mechanism and the need
to exercise caution when using these alternate methods"

> So, basically, if we can't agree on the mailing list, 3929 
> experimentally suggests trying a different way.
> 
> Some power grab.

	Exactly. Whereas it seems your saying something could go through
working group last call, fail to reach consensus, people would come to
consensus to use an alternative method, a final document would be agreed on
through the alternative resolution method(one of which may be do nothing as
3929 explicitly states), it would get through the IESG, nobody would think
to appeal it at any level of the process (the appeals process is also still
included as stated in 3929), and then proceed to widespread adoption without
anyone noticing. Yes....someone COULD game the system, I agree. As for the
entire IETF community overlooking this happening at every level in the
process, it's mention in 3929 is pretty clearly indicative of that not
happening.

-Tom

[email protected]