So I've just requested a 1.5 hour slot for Prague. If we figure we don't need it we can cancel out later.
Stephen. On 21/01/11 18:50, Eliot Lear wrote: > Barry, > > I'd suggest that the group is in one of two states: > > * We are sufficiently agreed on 4871bis that it can advance, at > which point I would ask that we circle back to the DOSETA split, > and how it relates to other work, and what opportunities there > are. I think Dave really posed an interesting idea, and what it > needs is a good test case. If we can identify that, then I would > say we should meet on that point, and consider this from a > re-charter perspective. > * If we are not concluded on 4871bis, then we should meet to close > on open issues. > > > Thanks, > > Eliot > > On 1/20/11 10:32 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Does the DKIM working group think it needs a face-to-face meeting in >> Prague, at IETF 81? >> >> I think we do not, though that answer may depend upon whether 4871bis >> is ready or needs more discussion, and whether we think we need >> discussion about the mailing lists document (which Murray has >> patiently been holding off on, while we sort out 4871bis). >> >> Comments? >> >> Barry, as chair >> _______________________________________________ >> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to >> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
