I suggest you look at RFC 2026, and tighten your terminology.
Is this a deliberate troll or are the insults merely gratuious?
A "draft" is
what we have now. A "draft" is worked on, edited, and finally moves to
"Proposed Standard". A "Proposed Standard" moves to "Draft
Standard". It does not move to "draft" ordinarilly.
My statement was perfectly clear in context. The IETF process is
confusing but not that confusing.
There is no code required at all at this point. We have multiple
independent implementations that provide proof of concept. The
creation of compliant versions is dependent on progress to
Proposed Standard.
The multiple implementations and experience referred to in RFC 2026 is
different from the concept of obtaining _some_ running code
to ensure that a draft is complete and workable.
That is not a process requirement.
The point of several people posting is that there are many different
problems that need to be solved before this draft should be
considered for last call.
They can raise them in the last call period, that is the purpose
of last call.
_some_ testing and codebase should be available before a draft
is put to last call. Otherwise, we are dealing in hypotheticals.
There is considerably more experience of use of SPF today than
there is of application of the vast majority of Proposed standards
and more than a few Draft standard.
Several days ago it was proposed that some testing be done before last
call. I thought there were many people in favor of that.
Indeed, I would
have thought there was a consensus on that direction. Is that not the
case? So what is the rush? I'm still not understanding what
the rush is.
If you really don't know what the rush is then I don't think you
understand the problem.