[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: [spf-discuss] IAB Response to the Appeal from Julian Mehnle : ietf-mxcomp
I was just made aware that the 2-day old message I sent didn't get to
the mailing list, and I am now asked to (manually) resent it.
I hereby resent the request that I have received, which includes the
copy of my original message, and the explanation of why it was delayed
for as long as 2 days and 9 hours.
Thanks,
Constantine.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Return-Path: <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227])
by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 15si2744981nzn.2006.03.04.13.53.49;
Sat, 04 Mar 2006 13:53:50 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 192.245.12.227 is neither permitted
nor denied by best guess record for domain of phoffman@xxxxxxx)
Received: from [10.20.30.249] (dsl2-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169])
(authenticated bits=0)
by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k24LrlKD010248
for <mureninc@xxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 14:53:48 -0700 (MST)
(envelope-from phoffman@xxxxxxx)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06230901c02fbcdaa944@[10.20.30.249]>
In-Reply-To: <200603021245.k22Cj1Br090262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200603021245.k22Cj1Br090262@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:53:41 -0800
To: mureninc@xxxxxxxxx
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] IAB Response to the Appeal from Julian Mehnle :
ietf-mxcomp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> >From owner-ietf-mxcomp Thu Mar 2 05:45:00 2006
>Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.207])
> by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k22Cix0Z090243
> for <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx>; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 05:45:00 -0700 (MST)
> (envelope-from mureninc@xxxxxxxxx)
>Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id n29so414566nzf
> for <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx>; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:44:59 -0800 (PST)
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
> s=beta; d=gmail.com;
>
>h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
>
>b=sLgMY8rRp/pv+GqWilXAdGWnJe7KnH9ZGZuOLCkSRk5T10exf3p96djYO5gIDXygoXVCiiR2yI6zY460DCCnDvM8zQQ8tYNnsMMt85Jl1sUI92LA7ZJ0bZFrk5oLfpVs834/4SRqvxHOQPjNnFGau/MNA5z64rsT0kchy83XH2Y=
>Received: by 10.64.179.7 with SMTP id b7mr631040qbf;
> Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:44:59 -0800 (PST)
>Received: by 10.65.73.3 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 04:44:59 -0800 (PST)
>Message-ID: <f34ca13c0603020444r699e276dn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:44:59 +0000
>From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: spf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] IAB Response to the Appeal from Julian
>MehnleCc: "Julian Mehnle" <julian@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Internet Architecture Board" <iab@xxxxxxx>,
> MARID <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx>,
> "SPF Council" <spf-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Internet Engineering Task Force" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>,
> "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
>In-Reply-To: <4406CC71.1010306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Disposition: inline
>References: <200602082212.40645.julian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <4406CC71.1010306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
>balder-227.proper.com id k22Cj00Z090245
>
>On 02/03/06, Leslie Daigle <leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On February 8, 2006, The IAB received an appeal from Julian Mehnle
>> appealing the IESG decision to publish draft-lyon-senderid-core as an
>> Experimental RFC. According to the procedures in Section 6.5.2 of RFC
>> 2026, the IAB has reviewed the situation and issues the following
>> response.
>>
>> 1. Summary of IAB Response
>>
>> The appeal is denied and the IESG's decision is upheld.
>>
>>
>> 2. Background
>>
>> After the termination of the MARID WG, the IESG approved both
>> draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02 and draft-lyon-senderid-core as
>> Experimental RFCs. Both RFCs were to bear the following note:
>>
>> "The following documents (draft-schlitt-spf-classic,
>> draft-katz-submitter, draft-lyon-senderid-core,
>> draft-lyon-senderid-pra) are published simultaneously as
>> Experimental RFCs, although there is no general technical consensus
>> and efforts to reconcile the two approaches have failed. As such
>> these documents have not received full IETF review and are
>> published "AS-IS" to document the different approaches as they were
>> considered in the MARID working group.
>
>The problem is that they ARE NOT published AS-IS to document the
>different approaches as they were considered (and _documented_) in the
>MARID working group. This IESG statement clearly violates the reality,
>just look at what was presented in the appeal:
>
><<The conflict arose only after the IESG asked for individual draft
>submissions from the SPF and Sender ID authors and
>draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 was submitted (which for the first time
>included the re-interpretation of "v=spf1" records for the PRA
>identity). Accepting such a submission despite the prior consensus of
>the MARID WG[5] (which was closed afterwards) that "v=spf1" should not
>be used for checking of PRA clearly violates the ultimate goal of
>producing reliable standards.>>
>
><<It is also worth noting that at the time the MARID WG was closed,
>the then-current Sender ID specification
>draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03[18] did not include the re-use of
>"v=spf1" records for PRA checking. This was only introduced in the
>individual submission draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 [19] in October
>2004. Also did Microsoft's record generation wizards generate only
>"v=spf2.0/pra" records until the end of October[20,21], when they
>began generating only "v=spf1" records.>>
>
>I have not heard anyone question this issue with Sender ID that was
>once again raised in the IAB appeal. Do you thus find it ethical and
>professional to publish these RFCs with the note that does not reflect
>the documented reality of the MARID WG?
>
>If any note is to be included in the RFCs, it should be the one from
>the appeal.
>
>Cheers,
>Constantine.
The message above was not sent to the mailing list because, as an anti-spam
measure, the list software prevents people whose exact address is not on any
mailing list we run from posting to lists. I have now permanently added the
above address to the "OK to post" list. Please send your message to the list
again.
---------- End of forwarded message ----------