On Monday, January 21, 2019 02:41:58 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Hunk at "page 17, line 44":
> >
> > Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end
> > of
> > the new paragraph. Something like, "Additionally
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 2:27 AM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Hunk at "page 17, line 44":
>
> Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end
> of
> the new paragraph. Something like, "Additionally, [RFC8463] added a new
> signing algorithm in DKIM, ed25519-sha256 and it is a
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 3:51 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Am I correct to assume the header and boilerplate changes are just
> artifacts of this being a temporary “draft-kucherawy...” draft rather
> than an actual revision to rfc7601bis?I believe so.
>
> Otherwise, this would address my DISCUSS.
>
Am I correct to assume the header and boilerplate changes are just artifacts of
this being a temporary “draft-kucherawy...” draft rather than an actual
revision to rfc7601bis?
Otherwise, this would address my DISCUSS.
Thanks!
Ben.
> On Jan 5, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
On Sun, Jan 6, 2019, at 5:45 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Here's what I've come up with. This is a diff between RFC7601 as
> published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the
> DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review. Please let me
> know if I've missed anything. I
I think this is generally good. I, of course, have a few comments.
Hunk at "page 17, line 44":
Perhaps another sentence (more for completeness than anything) at the end of
the new paragraph. Something like, "Additionally, [RFC8463] added a new
signing algorithm in DKIM, ed25519-sha256 and it
Here's what I've come up with. This is a diff between RFC7601 as published
and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the DISCUSSes and most
of the COMMENTs from IESG review. Please let me know if I've missed
anything. I'll post it at the end of the coming week if there are no
issues rai
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
> sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
> appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection that
> says, "The following was done in the previous edi
In case it’s not obvious, that would be sufficient for me to clear.
Thanks!
Ben.
> On Nov 30, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
> sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
> appropriately (perhaps just with a
Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection that
says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this
document, RFC 7601:", or some such), and then le
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:00 AM Alexey Melnikov
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to
> > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was
> > put in the registries
Hi all,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to
> "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was
> put in the registries before. But the working group decided to do it
> the other way, and
I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to
"obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was
put in the registries before. But the working group decided to do it
the other way, and there's been criticism in the past of ADs (and, so,
by extension, cha
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https
14 matches
Mail list logo
