RE: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 inconflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

|I think this misses the essentiatpoint.  There is an
|installed base of v=spf1 records published in some
|significant part before MARID.  Those records were
|published with Mail From and HELO and only with Mail From
|and HELO in mind.  The appeal is not just about what the
|Schlitt Draft (rightly) says.

One of my fundamental difficulties with the whole
discussion surrounding SPF/Sender ID is that proponents
continually rely on an "installed base" as justification
for refusing to change.

What happened prior to MARID was pre-IETF. The exercise was
an experiment. 

I can't speak for others, but when I published my record in
June 2004, at the time I understood the discussion to be
about mail from authentication and domain owners protecting
their domains against spoof attacks. 

I also understood that SPF was an experiment and
ultimately, I may have to change my record.

Today, given what I know about the plusses and minuses of
SPF as a result of significant and ongoing testing, I would
have to say the reasons being put forward to encourage
people to publish SPF records were at best wishful thinking.

So, from my perspective, although I appreciate and respect
the desire to support early adopters, when the whole issue
of spfv1 and spf2.0 was reviewed during MARID, my
understanding was that:

* The included scopes within the SIDF were going to be
MFROM and PRA; 

* It was decided to include both scopes in the SIDF
protocol; and,

* People would have to upgrade their existing records.

Was I happy with this last decision? Not particularly and
at the time, I quite frankly did not understand the need to
proceed in that fashion. 

But, given the ongoing "troubles" as the Irish would say, I
now believe those who advocated the need to move entirely
to spf2.0 were correct. It certainly seems logical from an
engineering perspective.

Of course, spfv1 advocates would suggest that those who
even dare suggest such an approach as a solution are ...
well the idea is simply unspeakable and by even putting it
forward, I have joined forces with the devil, or something
worse.

Since it seems evident from comments made to this list and
elsewhere, that representatives of the SPF community wish to
pursue the appeal and are not interested in negotiation, then
speaking for myself, I ask that:

* The IESG chair accept the appeal and based on the
concerns raised request the IESG to review the decision to
grant experimental status to what is commonly called
SPF-Classic and Sender ID group of documents. 

* The IESG rescind the grant of experimental status to the
SPF-Classic and Sender ID group of documents.

* The IESG request the original authors for SPF being
Messrs Wong, Lentczner, Katz and Lyon to re-submit drafts in
accord with and subject to the conditions laid out in the
request for individual submissions made after the MARID
closure for experimental status.

* As to the SPF-Classic draft, although this falls outside
the scope of the conditions laid out in the request for
individual submissions made after the MARID closure, since
the IESG previously considered the document, the IESG
invite the authors, Messrs Schlitt and Wong to resubmit
this draft as an individual submission for experimental RFC
status.

* The IESG then based on the concerns raised in the appeal
and such other concerns and circumstances as appropriate,
treat the various submissions and make those decisions
which it deems appropriate in the circumstances as to which
if any drafts should be approved for publication as
experimental or informational RFC status as appropriate.

All that being said, I wish the parties and particularly
the IESG chair all the best, as he endeavors to sort
through this thorny mess.

John Glube