Subject: IESG response to appeal by William Leibzon

From: IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:04:47 -0500

The IESG has reviewed William Leibzon's appeal against the
approval of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 (see
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal2-draft-lyon-senderid.txt
for the full text of the appeal).

Firstly we recall that the Sender ID drafts, and the SPF draft,
were approved for publication as Experimental RFCs and not approved
for the Standards track. The bar is lower for Experimental RFCs.

To avoid confusion, we repeat here the text of the IESG Note
to be included in each of the resulting RFCs:

"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 IESG takes no position about which approach is to be preferred and
cautions the reader that there are serious open issues for each approach and
concerns about using them in tandem. The IESG believes that documenting the
different approaches does less harm than not documenting them.

"The community is invited to observe the success or failure of the two
approaches during the two years following publication, in order that a
community consensus can be reached in the future."

We have reviewed the content of the appeal and subsequent
email discussion. The appeal asserts that Sender-ID makes
non-standard use of Resent- headers in a way that may affect
their interpretation by both participants and non-participants in
the Sender-ID experiment. The appeal requests the IESG to
address this, without suggesting a specific remedy.

After receiving expert advice from Chris Newman, the IESG has
decided it is sufficient to add the following text to the IESG
Note to be added to the four documents listed above:

"Participants in the Sender-ID experiment need to be aware
that the way Resent-* header fields are used will result in
failure to receive legitimate email when interacting with
standards-compliant systems (specifically automatic forwarders
which comply with the standards by not adding Resent-* headers,
and systems which comply with RFC 822 but have not yet implemented
RFC 2822 Resent-* semantics). It would be inappropriate to advance
Sender-ID on the standards track without resolving this
interoperability problem."

We thank William Leibzon for bringing this issue to our attention, and we hope
that the augmented IESG note will address his concerns.

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce