On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
John Levine writes over on CircleID:
[snip]
Some corrections to what is said in John's article: 1. The appeal is against publication of SID draft (3 SID drafts, although only one is actually mentioned in appeal they go together) as experimental RFC(s) in current form. This does not imply that SPF draft would not be published by itself as article's title suggests (although it maybe delayed if there is another attempt to reconcile the differences). In article text John does not say that SPF draft would not be published because of this appeal, so I'm unsure why such a title... 2. The appeal is made to IETF Chair Brian Carpenter. According to IETF system he can choose to have appeal decided on by IESG or can choose to decide on it himself (in which case his decision can still be appealed to IESG). So far he has not said if IESG as a whole will consider the appeal. In either case, saying that IESG received this appeal is probably not quite correct (they were CCed however). 3. During MARID itself it was decided that new record version would be used (SPF2.0 prefix), which is opposite to what John says in the article about there being decision as part of MARID to reuse existing set of SPF records. 4. Nobody knows how many records had been published exclusively for SID, but its probably lot less then for SPF. But I don't think maintaining records is such a big deal (rather having to decide what goes into initial record is a lot more of a problem) and it probably would not be the reason why SPF2 SID records would not published if separation happens. 5. As far as last two paragraphs in the article, first of all appeal is being made after people already asked if MS is willing to make a change and they said no. And as far as solution to this that lets "Microsoft save face", it probably can involve using positive results of SPF1 records for SID but not negative results unless its SPF2 record (which it not say that everyone at SPF "camp" would support it, but it is probably better then now). But I'd not be surprised if instead MS chooses to disregard IESG and IETF and proceed with SID even if its not approved for RFC, nor would I be surprised if IESG is afraid to say no to MS even when it knows this is bad engineering... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net