On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jim Fenton <fen...@cisco.com> wrote: > There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we: > > - Continue to direct comments at -01 > - Comment on -02 instead > - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft?
I think it's not necessary for us to restart, but reviews should now go against -02. There are only two significant changes between -01 and -02 ... most of the changes are just updating the references. The substantive changes are: 1. The addition of the paragraph that begins "Similarly, a message that is not compliant with RFC5322," near the end of 5.3. 2. The addition of 8.14. If anyone feels they need more time to review those than the currently WGLC provides, please let the chairs know. Dave: There's an error in the new paragraph in section 5.3; the first sentence appears to have been fragmented. It reads thus: "Similarly, a message that is not compliant with RFC5322, RFC2045 correct or interpret such content." Please post the correct version here, so reviewers have it handy, and have it ready for any subsequent update. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
