Re: IAB Response to the Appeal from Julian Mehnle

[Julian Mehnle <julian@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

To any who reply to this thread: please, please trim the list of recipients 
to remove any of the following addresses, unless you explicitly want to 
address them:
  * iab@xxxxxxx
  * iesg@xxxxxxxx
  * spf-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Keith Moore wrote:
> when editing documents that purport to describe existing practices and
> protocols, there is often a conflict between documenting existing
> practice and describing desirable practice (or undesirable practice).
> this conflict results in confusion of goals, and one possible result is
> that the document describes neither existing practice nor desirable
> practice.
>
> in resolving the conflict it is sometimes useful to separate the two
> efforts:
>
> - describe existing practice, warts and all
> - describe what is believed to be good or bad about the existing
>   practice

I agree.  But please note that there was no "existing practice" of re-using 
"v=spf1" records for the checking of the PRA identity or any other non- 
envelope identities when Microsoft first submitted the Sender ID drafts to 
the IESG after the demise of the MARID WG.  See my IESG appeal (included 
in the IAB appeal[1]) for details on the history of Sender ID's re-use of 
"v=spf1".

Please do not spread urban legends.

Julian.

References:
 1. http://www.iab.org/appeals/2006-02-08-mehnle-appeal.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEBzeswL7PKlBZWjsRAqBmAJ9AdDrgJmu57uoKLxESZDVnLK1yVwCgrQM0
Rm1xWFooLP/oOhQ45xXBTMY=
=1M5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----