Acctually I was the person who originally suggested using the 'not granted'
form.
The reason was that at the time there was no MARID group that the documents
were being submitted to. One of the bugs in the IETF procedure is that if
you don't have a working group and you use the open grant there is nothing
to stop someone taking your proposal and basically doing what they like with
it. In one case an individual took an RFC I was editing, rewrote the thing
in a completely braindamaged manner and then resumbitted it with his name
on. The company then traded for several years as having 'invented' the
technology.
Since at the time SPF was first written, burying in compost for six months
and recycling as firelighters was likely to be attempted I suggested the
closed grant. At the time there was no MARID group and the conversations I
was having with IESG members did not lead me to believe that the issue was
then treated with a sufficient degree of urgency. That has since changed.
At this point I would suggest the use of the closed grant for another
reason, we are now working on a consensus proposal, MARID. If the consensus
proposal goes forward it should supreceed the input proposals. We do not
want someone taking the input docs and progressing them if MARID is in
place.
BTW my understanding is that the input RFCs would be published as
Informational, not standards track so the closed grant is not an issue.
Phill