Eliot Lear said...
I'd have to go further than what you wrote. I believe the document
should explicitly discuss interactions with DKIM, as that document is in
front of the IESG at this time for approval as a Proposed Standard.
Many modifications to a message will invalidate a DKIM signature.
On Monday, January 08, 2007 08:09:58 PM +0100 Frank Ellermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about allowing PROTO shepherds to post to the I-D tracker?
Can't they ? At least the questionnaire (modulo 1F) is posted.
Not at present. The writeup is posted by whoever processed the shepherd
On Monday, January 08, 2007 11:03:00 AM + Adrian Farrel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we don't do this then they simply are not DISCUSSes. They are just
post-it notes.
Not true. Remember that DISCUSS is a ballot position. As I understand it
from my conversation with an IESG member s
On Monday, January 08, 2007 12:52:16 PM +0100 Simon Josefsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This lack of communication may cause friction. IESG members raise
issues, which ends up the tracker, and for which they might not
receive any response at all on. They may get the impression that the
do
On Thursday, January 04, 2007 03:12:07 PM +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see where you get that from. I can think of two cases where
we might get such an assertion from an AD:
1. The IETF Last Call did generate dissent.
I'd expect this to be the common case. T
On Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:21:37 AM +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
This is venturing into dangerous territory. The best expertise on
the technical issues involved _should_ be in the WG that produced the
document. Expecting to find _better_ expe
Markus Hofmann wrote:
> The intend of publishing this document before dissolving the WG is to
> have the discussion on how the IAB considerations apply to OPES/SMTP
> written down, in case individual contributors might pick-up the
> OPES/SMTP work later on (although we don't have indication this m
On Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:49:33 PM + Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C. PROCEDURAL BREAKAGE
---
* IETF process related to document advancement was not carried out;
e.g., there are unresolved and substantive Last Call comments which the
document do
Tony Finch wrote:
If the current document is intended as a case analysis for a particular
application -- namely email -- to serve as *input* to the design of the OPES
architecture and protocols, then I do not see how the current document
achieves that.
I believe it's intended to fit the existi
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> As has been clear for some time, the OPES topic is both important and
> difficult. That sort of combination always makes want to look for some
> history of exerience with ways to solve the current problem. In the case
> of OPES, I do not know of a quali
Stechter,
Thanks for the followup.
Stecher,Martin wrote:
This will allow to create such a separate filter box that you mentioned
but have it negotiate with different proxies and gateways what kind of
protocol/data it can handle.
Given what you say at the end of this sentence, I assume this i
>
> I never got the OPES idea. Of course folks can do their A/V
> and SIEVE and SIQ (I-D.irtf-asrg-iar-howe-siq-03) businesss
> on a separate box, they can even outsource it, but they do
> this already without OPES.
> So what's the technical point of OPES wrt mail ?
>
OPES' technical point
12 matches
Mail list logo
