IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

wayne <wayne@schlitt.net> Mon, 29 August 2005 11:41 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E9i0r-00018k-TM; Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:41:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E8fa9-00067V-Aj; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:53:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24875; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:53:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from schlitt.net ([67.52.51.34] helo=backbone.schlitt.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E8fas-0000sp-Ol; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:54:12 -0400
Received: from wayne by backbone.schlitt.net with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E8fZy-0005Wd-GO; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:19 -0500
From: wayne <wayne@schlitt.net>
To: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com
References: <B5BB79FFA1CF09E73E64D992@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <1124993318.13993.123.camel@thunk> <09E57A88-3A53-4A78-99D9-67E95B93E9C5@hxr.us> <x43bowpzni.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net> <7E876E12-3D43-4BFB-8F5B-76C3E985A610@hxr.us>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:53:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: <7E876E12-3D43-4BFB-8F5B-76C3E985A610@hxr.us> (Andrew Newton's message of "Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:45:17 -0400")
Message-ID: <x4pss0oili.fsf@footbone.schlitt.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) XEmacs/21.4.17 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, brc@zurich.ibm.com, hardie@qualcomm.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-mxcomp@imc.org, spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wayne@schlitt.net
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on backbone.schlitt.net
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, GREYLIST_ISWHITE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on backbone.schlitt.net)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:41:11 -0400
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, ietf@ietf.org, MARID <ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>, SPF Discussion <spf-discuss@v2.listbox.com>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

In <7E876E12-3D43-4BFB-8F5B-76C3E985A610@hxr.us> Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> 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.

I asked for the IESG to not consider the SPF I-D to be experiemental.
It was turned down.  According to Ted, *none* of the IESG members
expressed interest in changing the status from Experiemental.

So far, no one has appealed that decision, and there are only a few
days left to do so.  Like the appeal on the re-use of SPFv1 records, I
don't think it would be a productive use of my time to write an appeal
on the experimental status, and thus I won't do it.


-wayne

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email