[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SPF I-D for review: draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt

2005-05-22 20:01:21

On Sun May 22 2005 18:15, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

The ID-tracker says that the intended status -- which is nowhere mentioned
in the draft itself -- is Experimental.

It is entirely inappropriate to mention it in the draft.

The current version (dated March 25, 2005) of the "Guidelines to
Authors of Internet-Drafts",,
explicitly provides for indicating intended status:

  Indicating what status the document is aimed for is OK, but should be done 
with the words "Intended status: <status>".

It is helpful to reviewers to know what the intended status is, as
considerations apply to Standards Track documents that do not apply
to Experimental documents, and so on.