> I have, in the past, argued to the IESG that I did not think the SPF > I-D should be marked Experimental because I did not see it being an > experiment. It has been out for 2 years now and it is far too widely > deployed to make significant changes. Instead, I thought it should be > standard track. SPF does not meet the requirements for standards track. It is based on dubious premises and has too many known technical omissions, and it also lacks rough consensus. The fact that it is widely deployed is irrelevant because IETF does not exist to recognize wide deployment. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf