On 4/28/04 8:57 AM, wayne sent forth electrons to convey:
In <408F67AE(_dot_)1060103(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> Matthew Elvey
<matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> writes:
[The SPF RFC] is quite plainly Standards Track, not an experimental
RFC hopeful.
There is no SPF RFC at this time, AFAIK.
I do not know all the details of the requirement difference between
experimental and standard track, but from the charter, it sounds like
these RFCs will all be experimental.
I was aware of what you quoted, but it would be an error for the IETF to
publish it as an experimental RFC, even though the charter suggests it be.
The reasons and reference to the requirement differences are in my
original post, so I won't repeat 'em.
Two examples: from the spf homepage @pobox:
'This marks the first step on the road toward RFC standard status.'
all of http://spf.pobox.com/adoption.html .