[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
- To: ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
- From: Graham Murray <graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:56:21 +0100
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=webwayone.co.uk; s=ww1p; t=1125068358; h=From:To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To: Message-ID:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=FRNtHovi9dkn7S5v lmrfUF1I86Fk06xELFJmcelYlDp11Jfmgf6vZqQd+VqzkK0EullGcx94PTaL3n54m0f gbQ==
- In-reply-to: <> (Andrew Newton's message of "Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:45:17 -0400")
- List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
- List-id: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
- References: <> <> <> <> <>
- Sender: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.3 (i586-suse-linux)
Andrew Newton <andy@xxxxxx> writes:
> But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the document) do
> not consider this to be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should
> not publish SPF as an Experimental RFC.
That would be a good idea. As there is already more than one implementation of
the SPF protocol, should it not be possible to 'skip' the experimental phase
and go straight to the start of the standards track?