I think I'd understand the objections and agree with many of the concerns being expressed if this were a standards-track document, but it's not. It specifies a record type for experimental purposes, to increase the likelihood that people playing around with implementation implement the same things. It's somewhere between annoying and frustrating that an experimental document is being held to the same level of baked-ness that we expect of an internet standard. 2026 says: The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is published for the general information of the Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working Group, or it may be an individual contribution. And it seems that the review being received here goes *well* beyond what's described. We know that there are problems with trust models being used in existing protocols, and we know that the problem of the left-hand side of email addresses can be extremely difficult. I would suggest that shutting this publication down will tend to move us further away from solving them, not closer. This document represents working group consensus about an experiment they'd like to see happen. Given that there is general agreement within the community most directly concerned, it seems to me that the questions should be: 1) is this sufficiently well-specified to be able to produce interoperable implementations, and 2) does this break anything currently in use? We have seen no shortage of experimental specifications that never were widely deployed (or deployed at all), and I'm really not sure I understand the resistance to seeing this published as an experimental RFC. Certainly most of the objections I've been seeing are demanding rigor that we really should not be expecting from an experimental document, and they are inconsistent with our own well-documented criteria for experimental RFCs. Melinda