Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

On Aug 26, 2005, at 9:59 AM, wayne wrote:
>>> In this case, the two experiments interpret the same codepoints  
>>> in the
>>> DNS in subtly different ways.
>>>
>>> A mail-sending domain indicates that it is participating by  
>>> publishing
>>> certain DNS RR's.
>>> Crucially, a mail-sending domain cannot opt in to the SPF experiment
>>> without also opting in to the senderid experiment.  This renders any
>>> claimed results of either experiment suspect.
>>>
>>
>> If this is the source of the conflict, then BOTH experiments should
>> not use the v=spf1 records.
>>
>> -andy
>>
>
> The stated goal of draft-schlitt-spf-classic is to document SPF,
> basically as it was before the IETF got involved.  Yes, the IETF is
> calling it an experiment, which I don't agree with.  It is documenting
> an existing, well established, protocol.
>
>
> Are you saying that the IETF shouldn't publish an RFC that documents
> SPF?

I stated that the SPF and Sender ID experiments should not use the  
v=spf1 records to avoid conflict.  I did not state that the IETF  
should not publish an Experimental RFC about SPF.

But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the document) do  
not consider this to be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should  
not publish SPF as an Experimental RFC.

-andy