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

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan DeKok wrote:

>> Not from my POV, I wanted this beast under IETF control.

> Why?

Because Meng and the SPF community as it was before MARID
produced at least three ideas how to change the spec. per
hour, and that made me very nervous.

With a reason, Meng manouvered himself in a very awkward
position, after all he's the co-author of both drafts in
the subject.  He claims that it's sitting on a fence, but
actually it's barbed wire.

> The concerns you expressed in your previous message about
> the IETF leadership and methods were serious.

Some of them, not all of them.  It's a test, interesting
for anybody volunteering time for the IETF if it turns
out to be "directorated" by the commercial interests of
some big players.

> How do you believe you can move forward, given your
> concerns?

Julian proposed a simple remedy, it could be even shorter,
delete four letters in chapter 3.4 of senderid-core.  Bye.