OK... there hasn't been anything more on this thread for a week, so
it's time to tally. And I'm afraid the tally tells us little more
than what we had:
Include the informative note: 3
Do not include it: 4
No opinion: 5
This doesn't make for rough consensus in any direction.
I'm inclined, as
It's time for us to figure out whether we should request a session at
IETF 75 in Stockholm. Stephen and I will both be there, so that's not
a limiting factor.
We should have all the current documents except for deployment with
the IESG or RFC Editor by then, and we're not likely to need
This is the promised seed for 4871bis discussion. Is the group ready
to move ahead with that? Is the DKIM signing protocol ready to go to
Draft Standard? Is there an update needed, with another cycle at
Proposed Standard? Is there energy in the group to follow a 4871bis
effort through?
Please
Apart from the item that resulted in the errata draft, now heading
to the IESG as an update to 4871, there are a bunch of other
non-controversial errata that Pasi needs a response to. Will the 4871
authors please handle those, so the working group and Pasi can clear
them?
Barry (as chair)
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote:
OK... there hasn't been anything more on this thread for a week, so
it's time to tally. And I'm afraid the tally tells us little more
than what we had:
Include the informative note: 3
Do not include it: 4
No
(I've changed the subject to take this out of the thread where it
didn't belong.)
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Doug Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive the confusion about what was to be accomplished by the errata now
heading to the IESG. There was a vote in SF to _not_ make
already nodded in agreement to a number of the non-controversial
errata, and we had discussed that at IETF 73. What's the process to
clear the obvious ones?
Checking...
Barry
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
Barry Leiba wrote:
OK... there hasn't been anything more on this thread for a week, so
it's time to tally. And I'm afraid the tally tells us little more
than what we had:
Include the informative note: 3
Do not include it: 4
No opinion: 5
This doesn't make for rough consensus in any
Barry Leiba wrote:
Apart from the item that resulted in the errata draft, now heading
to the IESG as an update to 4871, there are a bunch of other
non-controversial errata that Pasi needs a response to. Will the 4871
authors please handle those, so the working group and Pasi can clear
them?
Barry Leiba wrote:
This is the promised seed for 4871bis discussion. Is the group ready
to move ahead with that? Is the DKIM signing protocol ready to go to
Draft Standard? Is there an update needed, with another cycle at
Proposed Standard? Is there energy in the group to follow a 4871bis
On May 1, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Doug Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com
wrote:
The errata however, either through error or by intent, made a
significant change to RFC 4871 by excluding the i= value from being
information passed to the MUA. RFC
I'm certainly ready to move forward with 4871bis. Yes, the protocol is
ready to go to Draft Standard. No, we do not need another cycle at
Proposed Standard. I think there's enough energy in the group to get
4871bis through.
As to why bother, with 16 errata to pore through, I feel that it is much
12 matches
Mail list logo
