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

In <[email protected]> Andrew Newton <[email protected]> writes:

> But since you brought this up: if you (the author of the document) do  
> not consider this to be an experiment, then perhaps the IETF should  
> not publish SPF as an Experimental RFC.

I asked for the IESG to not consider the SPF I-D to be experiemental.
It was turned down.  According to Ted, *none* of the IESG members
expressed interest in changing the status from Experiemental.

So far, no one has appealed that decision, and there are only a few
days left to do so.  Like the appeal on the re-use of SPFv1 records, I
don't think it would be a productive use of my time to write an appeal
on the experimental status, and thus I won't do it.


-wayne