In <tslbr3klgb4(_dot_)fsf(_at_)cz(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
"wayne" == wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> writes:
wayne> I asked for the IESG to not consider the SPF I-D to be
wayne> experiemental. It was turned down. According to Ted,
wayne> *none* of the IESG members expressed interest in changing
wayne> the status from Experiemental.
As a point of fact, I only saw requests from you to publish as a
proposed standard or some other standards track document rather than
experimental.
Of course I would not have seen private communication between you and
Ted.
however if you do not consider SPF an experiment, standards track is
not the only status to consider.
Yes, good point. I really hadn't considered other status. I guess
Informational might also be appropriate.
I still think Standard Track is most appropriate, but again, I don't
think it would be a productive use of time to try and change the
current Experimental designation.
-wayne