Re: Nomination for promotion to "Proposed Standard"

[ned.freed@mrochek.com]

> Raymond,

> a request for adoption as a proposed standard must be passed to the IESG,
> so you've acted according to the process.

> I'm hereby Thomas Narten, who is in charge of the DNSEXT WG, to act as
> shepherding AD for this document.

> Note: This area has multiple known proposals, and it would probably be less
> than optimal if users deploy four or five different types of
> sender-authentication records, all of which need large uptake in order to
> be reasonably useful. So expect a debate - and it's by no means certain
> that the result will be an IETF standard that resembles your document.

Harald, I note that the ASRG is actively engaged in trying to reconcile several
of the proposals in this area. As such, I think the correct course of action is
to direct this person to the ASRG so he can join the debate there. I certainly
would act to block this document if it came to a vote, citing existing
activity being alreayd underway in this area.

Now, perhaps it is inappropriate for the ASRG, a research group, to be
undertaking this activity. If that's the case then perhaps we should
be thinking about creating a WG to handle this.

I also think this proposal has everything to do with MTAs and email operation
and little if anything to do with DNS operation. As such, I think assignment of
it to DNSEXT is inappropriate. This belongs in apps.

I will also add that I have serious misgivings about all of the proposals in
this space, but it seems inevitable that one of them, or much worse, more than
one of them, is going to see widespread deployment no matter what the IETF does
or does not do. (SPF in particular seems to be gaining considerable momentum.)
As such, unpleasant though it may be, we need to be thinking in terms of damage
control.

				Ned