In <01LOKBPBEY1Y002Y46(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
On Fri May 20 2005 16:15, wayne wrote:
See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-01.txt
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 final status of
the draft is determined by the IESG; the status in the datatracker (and
eventually in the last call) is the status believed to be appropriate by the
submitter/WG. (I have seen documents last called as informational moved to
experimental and vice versa. I've also seen documents last called for
standards
track approved as informational or experimental.)
It is my understanding that it is entirely up to the IESG to determine
the final status of an I-D.
This I-D has apparently been mistakenly swept up with the (now closed)
MARID WG I-Ds, resulting in quite a bit of confusion. Or, at least,
I've been confused by the whole thing.
I apologize for any incorrect procedures or incorrect use of language
in the I-D. This is the first I-D that I have attempted to see
through to an RFC. On that note, I notice that this discussion has
been CC'ed to the IESG list. I suspect that they get a great deal of
email, and I suspect that carrying on detailed discussions of one I-D
is not appropriate. As a result, I've set the Reply-To: to the
ietf-smtp list and I'll carry on further conversations there. Please
correct me if this is not what I should do.
Experimental in particular would seem inappropriate for another reason
noted in the IESG comments; viz. that the draft attempts to document a
version which has apparently been superseded. Moreover, the message to
which this is in response claims a different intended status (see below).
IMO it is appropriate if the intent is to gain experience with the
specification and eventually, if experience proves positive, move it onto the
standards track. If, OTOH, the intent is to document something that's in use
but nonstandard and there's no intention to ever place it on the standards
track, informational is the appropriate status.
The intention of the people in the SPF community is to see this
through to an Internet Standard. (Well, assuming that dependancy RFCs
advance before too many years pass.)
Discussions about this, and previous, drafts have been taking place on
the spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com mailing list. To
subscribe or read
the archives, see http://spf.pobox.com/mailinglist.html
While I have been reading this mailing list for many months and will
note any comments posted here, sending email to the spf-discuss list
or to me personally is probably better than flooding this list.
The draft notes "The SPF project DOES NOT expect the IESG to review
this version. Instead, a two week pseudo last call will be put out
to collect any final changes. After that, a new I-D will be
submitted with the expectation of an IESG review.".
This statement is a best superfluous. The IESG generally only reviews drafts
it
has been reqested to review in one way or another. And while some documents
can
go to the IESG without an IETF last call (not standards-track ones, of
course),
IMO it would be entirely inappropriate for this one to. It is also entirely
possible that multiple revisions will be needed prior to handing it off
to the IESG.
Well, funny thing is, I have never requested that the IESG review any
of the SPF-classic I-Ds. As I said, it appears that this I-D has been
swept up with the MARID I-Ds. So, pardon my confusion on this
subject.
I have copied
the IESG mailing list so that the IESG can be kept informed of the
discussion -- if the intent is as stated not to subject the draft to
further public review in view of the IESG, then it would at least seem
appropriate to have suggested that copies of comments should be sent
to the IESG list.
Regardless of the intention, whether or not there's a last call for further
public review is up to the IESG. The IESG can, and often does, request last
calls for informational or experimental documents. I think this is one that
definitely deserves a four week last call.
As far as a Last Call goes, I completely agree that this I-D, as well
as the MARID WG I-Ds could *really* use a complete review. This is
why I have taken it upon myself to make mention of the SPF-classic I-D
on the mailing lists that I thought were most appropriate. I have
done this once before, earlier this year.
Unfortunately, it is my understanding that the IESG intends to omit
the Last Call for the MARID drafts. Again, please excuse my ignorance
of the IETF process, but there appears to me that the IESG is voting
right now to advance the MARID I-Ds.
-wayne