In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0505172331250(_dot_)6772(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
On Wed, 18 May 2005, wayne wrote:
When the pseudo last call is finished, I will submit a final draft to
the IETF and request a standard track review. I'm not sure what
happens next, but if we are allowed to go with a standard track, I
think we have to have a 4 week real last call, along with an IESG
review and such. Then it goes off the the RFC editor who will confirm
just how bad my English is.
Standard track requires IETF consensus (and not just interoperable
implementations) which I'm not certain exist and it requires consensus
at IESG as well.
Yeah, both Frank and my father gave similar warnings. My approach
will be to try and focus things on "is there consensus that this is
what SPF currently does?" and "is better to document this protocol used
on the Internet?". I will try point out that complaints along the
line of "is SPF a good idea?" are off topic.
I really don't think that this SPF is an experiment anymore. I don't
think it qualifies as for Experimental status. We don't have anything
in the draft about "what we expect to learn", nor are there any plans
on creating a "lessons learned" document.
Do you think it would be wiser to initially publish as Informational,
and then immediately turn around and try for Proposed Standard? Or,
would that make a mockery of the IETF process and just piss people
off?
And I dont think you should send spf draft to
standard review withot having consulted people at IESG if that would
be ok.
Yes, I plan on doing that, but thanks for making sure.
I also don't think you should change from experimental to standard on your
own without having that run by SPF Council (and having resolution on this
topic that has been voted on).
Advancing the I-D as a proposed standard has been mentioned on the SPF
council IRC channel, but yeah, getting a vote is a good idea. thanks.
-