Hi Tim,
At 10:57 10-12-2009, Polk, William T. wrote:
After reviewing IETF Last Call comments on gennai-smime-cnipa-pec, I
have decided to request IESG evaluation for publication as-is in an
Informational RFC.
The IESG sent a notice on October 13 about publication as a Proposed
Standard. Quot
Folks,
After reviewing IETF Last Call comments on gennai-smime-cnipa-pec, I have
decided to request IESG evaluation for publication as-is in an Informational
RFC.
It is my judgement that the community does not support progression on the
standards track. Given the level of implementation and
At 12:57 13-10-2009, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Certified Electronic Mail '
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. P
> "SM" == SM writes:
SM> Hi John,
SM> At 18:09 13-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>> This is the part of the review that I don't want to do unless
>> it is clear that it really belongs on Standards Track. If it
>> is an
SM> I mentioned to the authors of this draft th
On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:59 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
The IESG writes:
- 'Certified Electronic Mail '
as a Proposed Standard
This documents appears to utilize several e-mail header fields:
X-Ricevuta
X-Riferimento-Message-ID
X-VerificaSicurezza
X-Trasporto
Is that a good idea?
The head
Hi John,
At 18:09 13-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
This is the part of the review that I don't want to do unless it
is clear that it really belongs on Standards Track. If it is an
I mentioned to the authors of this draft that the changes I may
suggest for the document to be appropriate as a
The IESG writes:
> - 'Certified Electronic Mail '
> as a Proposed Standard
This documents appears to utilize several e-mail header fields:
X-Ricevuta
X-Riferimento-Message-ID
X-VerificaSicurezza
X-Trasporto
Is that a good idea?
The header field names are translated in Appendix A ("X-Notif
--On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 15:35 -0700 SM
wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 13:24 13-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Before trying to embark on an in-depth review of this long and
>> complex document, could the IESG explain to the community why
>> it is being processed as a Proposed Standard? Afte
Hi John,
At 13:24 13-10-2009, John C Klensin wrote:
Before trying to embark on an in-depth review of this long and
complex document, could the IESG explain to the community why it
is being processed as a Proposed Standard? After reading
quickly through its first few pages, and despite containin
--On Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:57 -0700 The IESG
wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
> to consider the following document:
>
> - 'Certified Electronic Mail '
> as a Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> s
10 matches
Mail list logo
