spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

[spf-discuss] Re: Appeal: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02

2005-12-13 13:04:01
I have, in the past, argued to the IESG that I did not think the SPF
I-D should be marked Experimental because I did not see it being an
experiment.  It has been out for 2 years now and it is far too widely
deployed to make significant changes.  Instead, I thought it should be
standard track. 

SPF does not meet the requirements for standards track.  It is based on
dubious premises and has too many known technical omissions, and it
also lacks rough consensus.  The fact that it is widely deployed is
irrelevant because IETF does not exist to recognize wide deployment.

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com