Hi Hector,
At 06:30 20-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
I have a few questions and points:
May I ask why was the above was not an area for clarification as
oppose as the presumed stated technical reason for removal?
The SPFBIS WG had a session at IETF 83. The minutes for that session
is at
ht
On 8/19/2013 7:42 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:>
At 14:10 19-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
I'm having a hard time with both sides of the argument, especially
the supposed existence of an "interop problem" which seems to only
highlight how to "procedurally" stump the SPF type advocates with a
"error co
On 8/19/2013 8:01 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
The repeated assertions of "This has been discussed already" are in effect
"shut up", but slightly more polite. I complied until last call. As was
recommended by wg chairs.
There is a fundamental difference between telling someone to shut up and
askin
Subject: Re: SPF TYPE support Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 04:42:42PM -0700
Quoting S Moonesamy (sm+i...@elandsys.com):
> I personally do not think that it is appropriate to ask any working
> group participant to "shut up". I welcome hearing arguments and I
> expect a working
On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> This will allow coders to add the optimized logic for usage. It will also
> allow for new problem solving seeds to be laid down. It will hopefully get
> the DNS software vendors to finally add direct support for unnamed TYPE
> support (query
Hi Hector,
At 14:10 19-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
I'm having a hard time with both sides of the argument, especially
the supposed existence of an "interop problem" which seems to only
highlight how to "procedurally" stump the SPF type advocates with a
"error correction" standpoint. What is
I will let the document shepherd/editor address particular points in
this and other messages, but on one procedural point:
On 8/19/13 4:10 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
I don't believe there was an adequate answer from the advocates of
removing the SPF RR type...
That's an appropriate issue to rai
Hi,
I'm having a hard time with both sides of the argument, especially the
supposed existence of an "interop problem" which seems to only highlight
how to "procedurally" stump the SPF type advocates with a "error
correction" standpoint. What is that error by the way?
I don't believe there
