On 21 aug 2013, at 20:29, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > On 8/21/2013 11:13 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> But we are not there. A proper migration strategy to SPF has not been >> published. > > Oh. Now I understand. > > You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many years > after the IETF approved it. > > Thanks. Very helpful.
Dave, I do not appreciate the tone of your message. I explain as part of a last call of a message to the IETF mailing list why I object to publication of an I-D as an RFC. If the IESG comes to the conclusion that the document should be published fine. If they say it should not. Fine. That is the IETF process. I should have staid on the DNS mailing list as I said originally, where I promised people I should not discuss SPF anymore on the main IETF list because I knew the pushback from you and a few others would be exactly like this. I was convinced to give my view on SPF to the IETF list so that it was known correctly to the last call process. A process I have always trusted and believed it. And still trust and still believe in. This is my last posting in this thread. Patrik
