RE: DEPLOY: Rejection of Sender ID does not result in standardiza tion of SPF Classic

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Rand Wacker writes:
> 
> > fine, that's the choice of the group.  No-one here should 
> be under the
> > impression that scuttling Sender ID at this time will give 
> SPF Classic any
> > fast track through the standards process.
> 
> That's fine.  You might want to study the evolution of NNTP.  
> There, lack of 
> the official IETF stamp of approval did not inhibit NNTP from 
> evolving.  If 
> you try to implement NNTP based only on IETF's standards-track 
> documentation, you won't get very far.

Are you saying that NNTP is a good example of protocol design?
Or a good example of creating a widely supported feature set?

I don't think either really holds. NNTP was in any case established
and the RFC published before the date of the first IETF meeting
and long before there was a defined IETF process.

NNTP chews up about four orders of bandwidth more bandwidth than it
needs to. The protcol set is poorly standardized and the application
has failed to meet the problems of spam, trolls and other social 
issues.

There is a reason why NNTP has been replaced by the blogosphere.