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

>>>>> "wayne" == wayne  <[email protected]> writes:

    wayne> In <[email protected]> Andrew
    wayne> 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.

    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.