Well done! I feel that rough consensus must be close.
> On Dec 2, 2023, at 5:10 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> On Fri 01/Dec/2023 21:06:24 +0100 Steven M Jones wrote:
>> There are only four open items on the issue tracker - though I think the SPF
>> question
>>
On Fri 01/Dec/2023 21:06:24 +0100 Steven M Jones wrote:
There are only four open items on the issue tracker - though I think the SPF
question (https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/116) was
resolved. But is that really all there is to do?
I'd hope most of the
On 12/1/23 11:14 AM, Dotzero wrote:
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:04 AM Todd Herr
wrote:
I further think that the best way to produce the next rev of
DMARCbis is for the chairs and the editors (and perhaps the ADs)
to huddle together and create/update issues in the Github
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:04 AM Todd Herr wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 2:15 PM Barry Leiba
> wrote:
>
>> Now that we have a consensus call on the main issue that has remained
>> open:
>>
>> 1. Do we need to retain our session at IETF 118 and discuss this (or
>> something else) further?
>>
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 2:15 PM Barry Leiba wrote:
> Now that we have a consensus call on the main issue that has remained open:
>
> 1. Do we need to retain our session at IETF 118 and discuss this (or
> something else) further?
>
> ...or...
>
> 2. Do we have what we need to finish up the
