Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
status-change-dkim-to-internetstandard-03: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however
Thanks to all those involved!
spt
Original Message
Subject: RFC 6376 on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org, rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
CC: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org,
Thanks to all involved!
spt
Original Message
Subject: BCP 167, RFC 6377 on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) and
Mailing Lists
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org, rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
CC:
The changes were made as a result of IESG comments.
spt
On 6/23/11 1:41 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
I'm confused. I thought it was too late to make changes to this draft.
While I don't think any of the changes between -11 and -12 are bad, if
it's open for changes, I have a bunch more that I'd
On 5/11/11 1:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/11/2011 10:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I suspect you would find signficant objection to making it a PS.
Probably not if it's made into an Applicability Statement:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2
That's simultaneously a
On 2/28/11 3:27 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 28 Feb 2011, at 19:47, Dave CROCKERd...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 2/28/2011 1:34 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
The time to switch for DKIM is likely to be when ...
Just to be entirely pedantic:
1. This topic is out of scope for the wg at this
