Frank, if you were willing to write up an I-D of the form
"SPF experiment considered harmful", explaining just why this
is a Bad Idea, that might be a valuable community service.
It's more like "using PRA with v=spf1 considered harmful", and
from the v=spf1 side it's already a NOT RECOMMENDED (plus the
"without explicit consent" disclaimer). From the PRA side it
is a SHOULD, do you think a new I-D addressing only why it is
really NOT RECOMMENDED helps ?
every little bit helps. and it's better to get this kind of feedback
published sooner, than to hold it up waiting for a more complete document.
The part about the option is ready, up to some of the security
considerations. And assuming that this I-D somehow makes it,
should it move the PRA RFC to historic, or update it ?
your I-D wouldn't necessarily have to be published as an RFC to be
useful. I wouldn't worry about the reclassification of the PRA RFC just
yet.
With the discussions between Brian, Dave, Sam, and John on the
general list another idea I had today was to update RFC 2026
so that authors could insist on a proper "IETF last call" for
an experimental RFC even if it was not created by an IETF WG.
I'd be in favor of something like that. Experimental documents should
describe experiments, test conditions, what is to be measured and how it
is to be measured, and also describe whatever preventative measures are
needed to limit harm done by the experiment.