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