Total of 68 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 22 00:53:01 EDT 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.82% |6 | 10.22% |51216 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8.82% |6 | 9.98% |50018 | [EMAIL
I am out (on vacation :) ) until next 16 July. See you then.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I will be out of the office starting 06/22/2007 and will not return until
07/15/2007.
I will respond to your message when I return as I will have limited access
to my mail. Please contact Pamela lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]/415-606-8754) and
Carmen Allen([EMAIL PROTECTED]/609-751-2062) for immediate
--On Sunday, 17 June, 2007 22:43 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, you have to have a structure/process/rules that assumes
people are generally trying to do the Right Thing. For checks
and balances, you then also need appeals procedures and a
willingness to speak up
My last call comment as a technical contributor (apologies for the lateness):
Overall, this is a very important document which I support.
I'm not fond of the current title because I believe it will cause the document
to be ignored by the people who most need to read it. I suggest:
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for a DKIM Signing Practices Protocol '
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-04.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
