Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

[wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <tslbr3klgb4.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:

>>>>>> "wayne" == wayne  <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>     wayne> I asked for the IESG to not consider the SPF I-D to be
>     wayne> experiemental.  It was turned down.  According to Ted,
>     wayne> *none* of the IESG members expressed interest in changing
>     wayne> the status from Experiemental.
>
>
> As a point of fact, I only saw requests from you to publish as a
> proposed standard or some other standards track document rather than
> experimental.
>
> Of course I would not have seen private communication between you and
> Ted.
>
> however if you do not consider SPF an experiment, standards track is
> not the only status to consider.

Yes, good point.  I really hadn't considered other status.  I guess
Informational might also be appropriate.

I still think Standard Track is most appropriate, but again, I don't
think it would be a productive use of time to try and change the
current Experimental designation.


-wayne