[Top] [All Lists]

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

2005-05-22 21:28:48

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>".

Well, all I can say is I think doing in the actual document is a bad idea. And
I note that all it says is that it is OK - hardly a ringing endorsement.

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.

That's why it is included in the last call announcement. Having it in the
document as well is an invitation to have silly states. We have too
many of those as it is.