Re: [apps-discuss] Updating the status of SPF

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, August 12, 2011 09:14:57 AM Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 06:07:04PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I feel strongly that the 4408bis effort we are discussing now should be a
> > minimal/backwards compatible_unless_it_is_impossible update.  Once that
> > is complete there is a backlog of incompatible design ideas for
> > simplifying and improving SPF.  In that context I think moving to Type
> > SPF only makes a lot of sense and should be considered.  I don't want to
> > get that mixed in with the current effort.
> 
> I don't have a strong feeling about this, but why is that a better
> strategy?  If the goal is to move SPF off the EXPERIMENTAL track, then
> surely the time to make changes to the protocol is when you move it
> and determine the extent to which the experiment worked or didn't?
> Cf. the current effort in the EAI WG.

It's in wide scale use.  The goal of the current effort is to document that 
use. 

Scott K