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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf