Rand Wacker writes:
fine, that's the choice of the group. No-one here should
be under the
impression that scuttling Sender ID at this time will give
SPF Classic any
fast track through the standards process.
That's fine. You might want to study the evolution of NNTP.
There, lack of
the official IETF stamp of approval did not inhibit NNTP from
evolving. If
you try to implement NNTP based only on IETF's standards-track
documentation, you won't get very far.
Are you saying that NNTP is a good example of protocol design?
Or a good example of creating a widely supported feature set?
I don't think either really holds. NNTP was in any case established
and the RFC published before the date of the first IETF meeting
and long before there was a defined IETF process.
NNTP chews up about four orders of bandwidth more bandwidth than it
needs to. The protcol set is poorly standardized and the application
has failed to meet the problems of spam, trolls and other social
issues.
There is a reason why NNTP has been replaced by the blogosphere.