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

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

wayne wrote:

> Informational might also be appropriate.

Not from my POV, I wanted this beast under IETF control.

That's why I pushed for an RfC, and later after reading
the "fine print" 2026 for standards track.

"Informational" is something the authors could update 
whenever it pleases them.  There was no SPF Council
last year, "we" (TINW) trusted that the IETF and MARID
would get it right.

Okay, that failed spectacularly forcing "us" to create
the SPF Council.  I still prefer standards track, not
some obscure one and a half standards SDO "SPF".  The
role model for "us" might be XMPP (not Phil's idea W3C,
that's megalomaniac).

> I still think Standard Track is most appropriate

ACK.  Now if the IESG thinks that something with less
than one million participants covering roughly about 80%
of AOL's inbound mails is an "experiment", then that's
their choice, and we'll remind them of their own choice
for each and every wannabe-PS with a smaller deployment.

> I don't think it would be a productive use of time to
> try and change the current Experimental designation.

ACK.  Better get a proper PS later, with interoperability
reports, relevant "lessons learned", etc. - too late for
DKIM, but still useful for other / later efforts trying
to do wild and wonderful things with DNS.  Bye, Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf