On 10/2/2013 11:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
wrote:
If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
As in, duh...
"Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents t
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> I don't believe this would be a fair assessment of industry wide support
> -- using only one API to measure. There are other APIs and proprietary
> systems who most likely are not part of the OpenDKIM group. There are
> commercial operatio
On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2013 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
>>
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
>>> the following status changes:
>>>
>>> - RFC5617 from Prop
>> Hi. Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of
>> what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but
>> the writeup at
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
>> says "to Internet Standard". Can one or the other be corrected?
>
>
On 10/2/2013 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:
- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
The supporting document for this request can be
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> the following status changes:
>
> - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org
I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
wrote:
> If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
> As in, duh...
"Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents to Historic for many
reasons. RFC 2026 lists
On 10/2/2013 9:28 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
After reading the description at the link cited above and
assuming that "Historic" is actually intended, I wonder,
procedurally, whether a move to Historic without document other
than in the tracker is an appropriate substitute for the
publication of an
: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-
> boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:42 AM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Subject: Last Call: Change the status of ADSP (RFC 5617) to Internet
Standard
>
>
> The IESG has received a request fro
> Hi. Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of
> what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but
> the writeup at
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
> says "to Internet Standard". Can one or the other be corrected?
Gakk. I
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:41 -0700 The IESG
wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant
> to make the following status changes:
>
> - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> http://d
>The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
>the following status changes:
>
>- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
>
>The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
I'm one o
12 matches
Mail list logo