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

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Julian,

not speaking for anyone but myself.....

one matter of principle:

are you of the opinion that the IESG should try to police which experiments 
get run on the Internet by refusing to publish RFCs documenting 
possibly-conflicting experments?

Both of these documents were published at the request of their authors. I 
know that ways in which they could cause conflict were pointed out to the 
authors, and that both authors upheld their requests to publish.

If you ask the IESG to assert the power to police this kind of experiment, 
please make sure you will be happy with the result if they agree with 
you.....

                 Harald

--On 25. august 2005 00:45 +0200 Julian Mehnle <julian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I believe that draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 conflicts in a significant
> aspect with draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02, on which the former depends, and
> which has also been approved by the IESG to be published as an
> Experimental RFC.[2]  The conflicting part of the Sender-ID specification
> disrespects the substantial history the SPF specification has outside the
> IETF. Through its decision, the IESG also ignores SPF's deployed base.[3]
> And even if the IESG intends to run both of the specifications as an
> experiment before deciding any further on how to proceed with them, the
> publication of conflicting specifications is bound to disrupt these
> experiments.