On 14/02/17 01:32, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Verified as Editorial is my preference.
Done.
Cheers,
S.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
On 08/02/17 03:04, Barry Leiba wrote:
> When I was on the IESG, we had been talking with Heather and Sandy about
> what to do about fixing up the whole errata system. Not sure where that
> is now. It wasn't anyone's top priority at the time.
The RFC editor folks were too busy with the RFC for
On 07/02/17 15:33, Dave Crocker wrote:
> G'day.
>
> Looking for a community determination, here: The DKIM spec's examples
> in A.2 and A.3 do not explicitly claim to be related to each other.
> However they do contain the same message, so that assuming a
> relationship seems pretty reasonable.
Hi Jon,
On 27/10/16 23:29, Jon Callas wrote:
>
>> On Oct 27, 2016, at 1:29 AM, Peter Goldstein
>> wrote:
>
>> Those guidelines ... specify that receivers MUST validate
>> signatures of 512 to 2048 bits, but are not required to validate
>> signatures with longer keys - may be worth revisiting g
Thanks folks. I plan to accept this as-is later today
unless someone proposes better text that gets a better
reaction.
S
On 27/09/16 03:30, John R Levine wrote:
> tl;dr the proposed correction does the right thing
>
>
>>> Section: 3.5
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -
>>> x-sig-q-tag-arg
If someone familiar with the dkim abnf could comment I'd be
happy to approve/reject this as appropriate.
S
On 26/09/16 20:15, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6376,
> "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures".
>
>
case that'll be
tackled, or if there are other relevant use-cases people are
also willing to work on.
If interested in this, please discuss it on l...@ietf.org
Ta,
S.
Forwarded Message
Subject: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use case: DKIM
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 201
That looks weird. Do we know its not spam?
S
On 08/15/2013 04:44 PM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
>
> Dear Murray Kucherawy, Dave Crocker, Tony Hansen:
>
> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "DomainKeys Identified
> Mail (DKIM) Signatures" (RFC6376) was submitted to the IETF Secre
Stephen Farrell 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
On 09/26/2011 07:23 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The Domain Key Identified Mail (dkim) working group in the Security Area
>> has concluded.
>
> And with that, ends an era. I want to thank everyone who worked hard
> on getting the DKIM documents decided, written, and published. I've
> been pleased
On 28 Feb 2011, at 19:47, Dave CROCKER 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 time.
Asking i
On 28/02/11 17:48, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> But while we're on the topic...
>
> Elliptic curve cryptography has been getting more and more attention lately.
> Does anyone have a good feel for adoption rates? Should we (or maybe another
> group, or an individual submission) look into regi
On 28/02/11 09:53, Hanno Böck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently researching about the usage of RSA-PSS, an improved
> padding method for RSA signatures (specified in PKCS #1 2.1/RFC 3447).
>
> I saw that domainkeys in RFC 4871 is hard-bound to the old PKCS #1 1.5
> method. RFC 4871 was developed y
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
>
On 11/01/11 12:12, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 1. I recognize that sometimes good ideas have their own schedules, but
> I consider it unfortunate that the WG had to spend time to go through
> WGLC, resolve open issues, and then for the authors and chairs to
> reorganize the work.
Just one quick clari
On 24/11/10 16:02, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> +1. For different reasons, both ADSP and SPF seem to need a revision.
> Is there an opportunity to be taken here?
Not in this WG with this charter.
Let's get done with out work items.
S.
___
NOTE WELL:
Let's not do this on this list.
On 24/11/10 15:42, John R. Levine wrote:
> This really does need to be a FAQ.
>
>>> DKIM works just dandy, when lists sign their mail like this one does.
>
>> Unless the intermediary co-operates by re-signing, mailing lists can break
>> DKIM signatures.
>
> Qui
On 15/10/10 19:48, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 10:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> In this case, I don't recollect an objection, so thus far, it seems
>> to me that Dave's correct on this one. I think its perfectly fine
>> for an editor to try to close
On 15/10/10 18:32, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I'd like to ask a procedural question of the chairs: Dave killfile's
>> many participants, therefore any consensus he sees will merely reflect
>> the echo chamber of his own making.
>>
>> So I strongly object on procedural grounds for authors who kill file
On 11/10/10 22:35, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> The same question on Working Group Last Call applies here as well.
>>
>> Abort, retry or ignore? :-)
>
> I guess it's up to the chairs. It hadn't occurred to me that this could
> upset a WGLC.
At this point I'd say that the changes are (I ho
On 05/10/10 23:54, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> Recommending that one more "From" be added to h= (and hashed)
> than From headers are initially placed in the message should be enough.
> There is no need to change the semantics of the spec.
Assuming that "recommending" above maps to a (putative)
"MU
On 02/10/10 16:22, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2010 5:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> On 01/10/10 18:28, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> I think the text should therefore be revised from:
>>>
>>>> 1.1. Signing Identity
>>> ...
>>>>
On 01/10/10 18:28, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 10/1/2010 10:15 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> The spec simply states that DKIM doesn't require any binding at all.
>> (Section 1.1)
>
>
> It occurs to me that this language permits a misinterpretation and that
> stronger
> and more direc
On 28/09/10 23:02, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On 9/27/10 9:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 27, 2010 4:19 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> TPA-Label involves ADSP being discussed on the dkim list.
I've no idea precisely what Doug means here, but to avoid
doubt: the DKIM WG has
On 15/09/10 15:43, McDowell, Brett wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>> Based on that (rather precise) description, aren't ADSP's requirements a
>> proper subset of the DKIM requirements? If so, I'm not sure I agree with
>> "badly conflicting", but it does fr
I totally agree that this pointless repetition is...pointless.
Barry and I have asked folks to stop that kind of thing a number
of times with no real success. (As demonstrated by the last
few days messages.)
Perhaps this time people will be more responsible, we'll see.
I also think that the few
Folks,
Please. Let's get back to the work at hand and not
spend time on this,
Stephen.
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
On 19/08/10 18:06, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 08/19/2010 09:20 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Be sure to tell them that ADSP is not useful, according to one of the
>> authors of the ADSP RFC.
>
> Chairs --
>
> Can I ask for a revision of ADSP where John is stripped out of the document?
You can ask.
So it seems reasonable for folks to discuss this for a few days
and if a consensus is clear we can go from there. Otherwise maybe
we can poll about in next week or so. (Other suggestions welcome,
particularly from Murray as editor.)
S.
On 10/08/10 15:06, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/2010 1
Folks. I suspect we're not longer involved
in a straw poll of any kind in this thread.
If there are points arising, please start
new threads.
Otherwise, it'd be great if folks could spend
their time commenting on Murray's draft, as
some have already done.
Thanks,
Stephen.
__
Hi John,
I think I generally agree with the overall conclusion that expecting
signatures to verify after list processing isn't worth the effort,
but I'm not sure your logic below is sound...
On 09/08/10 18:45, John Levine wrote:
> In article <548b10a3a5fcf3025a4b5...@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Hi,
There was a discussion on the IETF wg chairs list last year
that concluded it'd be good for chairs to be transparent
about their affiliation.
So: Until recently (April) I was working 50:50 for Trinity
College Dublin (TCD) and NewBay Software. Since then I've got
some more research money and
Folks,
I guess we do have work to do in Maastricht so Barry and I
will request a meeting slot unless we hear that lots of
people we'd want there will be missing. (Last time I
asked I only got a very few folks who said they'd be there.
If you will be there, I'd be interested in knowing that
off li
On 05/21/2010 03:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 5/20/2010 3:36 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Separately, some IESG folks have asked whether we really have
>> the cycles available for some of our new charter items, in
>> particular:
>
> I don't under
On 05/19/2010 11:25 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Attending a Maastricht meeting is highly likely for me, but Beijing is less
> certain.
You may not be alone there.
> Could we plan a regular meeting in Maastricht? Seems appropriate given the
> big interest in a "DKIM And MLMs" document.
That doesn't seem to be about mailing lists.
I don't see that we're re-opening ADSP now and we're not
chartered for that, so I don't really see much point in
this discussion.
So perhaps take that discussion offlist?
Stephen.
On 05/19/2010 01:18 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2
Hi all,
The attached is the updated charter Barry and I
will send to Sean on Monday. The text is the same
as last time we sent this to the list, we just
modified the milestones a bit to reflect what
we think is doable starting from now.
This charter and milestones imply that we should
probably r
On 05/11/2010 06:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From what I see on the list, there is clear consensus that this
>> document should be produced as a WG document (which I support as well).
>> So can we consider that question closed?
>
> That's up to the chairs, but I suspect we have enough
Just a question/comment about these recent discussions.
Is there anything here that's not already noted in our
draft charter update that might be actionable and could
garner WG consensus?
I didn't see anything myself, but then there's been a
lot of mail so I may have missed something. If I've go
Thanks Pasi,
FWIW, I think Pasi's suggestion moves us forward nicely so
I'd be happy to see us agree to do that.
Stephen.
On 03/11/2010 10:30 AM, pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
> I'm getting the impression that this debate is starting to be about
> proving points rather than making progress. In t
On 03/11/2010 10:50 AM, pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
> Just two unprocessed errata left! Tackling the easier one first:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1532
>
> Appendix A of draft-ietf-dkim-deployment has detailed text about
> this topic (differences in DNS key records bet
SM wrote:
>>> The working group is now ready to switch its focus to refining and
>>> advancing the DKIM protocols. The current deliverables for the
>>> DKIM working group are these:
>>>
>>> * Advance the base DKIM protocol (RFC 4871) to Draft Standard.
>
> The base DKIM protocol is updated
DKIM colleagues,
You all know that the DKIM discussions have sometimes been
contentious, and some participants have gotten hot under the collar.
We note that that's been particularly true recently, and we'd like
everyone to take a step back and remind themselves of a few things:
1. The purpose o
Hi Hector,
We need to keep the tone here under control and in particular
the text below is inappropriate. Please desist from making
assertions like this on this list.
hector wrote:
> Well, maybe if the WG can get a true champion of POLICY and not one
> that selfishly took over SSP with the sole
, so for now, I'm just trying to understand if
you're proposing something for that, (and if so, if you're volunteering
to do work:-)
If your question is unrelated to the charter discussion, that's fine
too.
Cheers,
S.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "
Folks,
To make life a little easier for us all, (well, mainly Barry
and I:-), could you please keep this thread to discussion of
the proposed charter update.
And where you've thoughts on that, specific alternate
text would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Stephen.
PS: I see John L. has done the right t
Thanks Dave,
Let's give it a day or two more to see if anyone else has
suggested changes then Barry & I will think about folding
in your suggestions.
Cheers,
S.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Description of Working Group:
>>
>> The Internet mail protocols and infrastructure al
Franck,
Franck Martin wrote:
> Seems to me something is missing: gather data to establish if DKIM
> specifications have in any way alleviated any misuse of the email system, in
> particular but not limited to spam, phishing attacks and fraud.
>
If you want to propose some specific work items
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> If advancing DKIM/ADSP along the standards heirarchy is all that's on the
> table, I think it should wait.
>
> Effective rollout of DKIM in large hetrgenous organizations is complex and
> takes time. I think it's better to pause for a while and give broad
> operati
FYI.
Stephen.
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
Thanks to the ADs and chairs that forwarded the previous reminder to
their mailing lists. I would appreciate it if other chairs and ADs could
do so, since we are really in need of more nominations.
Thanks,
Mary.
-Original Message-
From: ietf
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> The putative attack would be to sign with foo-sha256 where foo is some
>> algorithm that a verifier supports and such that the foo key encoding
>> could
>> accept an rsa p= value as input and such that that c
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Here's what I remember from the original discussion of h= and k= in
>> the key record.
>>
>> First, part of the idea was to have them both there, to make things
>> parallel: "This key is used for this crypto suite."
>> [...]
>
> I'm neutral on either keeping or remo
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> Barry Leiba wrote:
>> 1. Crypto suite X had been seriously cracked, such that an attacker
>> could, at least in some cases, create a valid suite-X signature on his
>
> Is there any experiential basis to motivate our having to worry about this
> attack vector? In other
I think Murray's point is a fair one. This thread isn't
really progressing in terms of what to in/exclude from
4871bis as far as I can see so let's leave it there.
Stephen.
Doug Otis wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>>> The use of the DKIM l=, z= and x= feature
It'd be useful for us, as chairs, to know if we have consensus
around requirements for interop between implementations of 4871
and 4871bis.
Some of the discussions about things to deprecate may affect that,
so if we have a clear understanding in advance it might short-cut
some discussions of spec
So let me try summarise and ask a question.
I don't think I've seen anyone who wants to do more than
just roll up the existing errata into a bis document, possibly
with some editorial changes I guess. I've not seen anyone
suggest that we add features or remove a raft of features
or make other sub
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I'd like to strongly encourage the working group to defer this change until
> the
> -bis work.
Yep. With my chair hat on, I think such a change would be very
like starting in on the bis work (which we've yet to scope) and
we didn't include it in the consensus call. So I b
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Perhaps some other vendors would like to weigh in.
I'm not at all sure we really need to have that discussion on here.
The logic being that it doesn't affect what we do or don't say in
the errata I-D.
Stephen.
___
NOTE WE
DKIM met on Wednesday at 9am. About 40 people attended.
Discussion centred on the content of, and how to process, an
I-D describing mostly terminology changes to RFC 4871. The
consensus in the room was to quickly finish up that I-D (we
had three areas where some tweaking might be needed), and
the
Siegel, Ellen wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> On Behalf Of John Levine
>>
>> Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
>> I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
>>
>
> Sounds like a good approach to me.
Just in case: Please don't prepare a new A
Jim Fenton wrote:
> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Are there other changes to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata being proposed?
>>
>
> I believe the Chairs requested that the other, non-controversial, errata
> be incorporated into this draft.
I think we suggested it as an option rather than requested
You have suggested that many times. The WG and
the BoFs before it always disagreed. End of story
as far as I'm concerned unless *many* of those
that want it as standards-track now indicate
a change of mind.
Again, please stop. This is unproductive and
totally distracting the WG from progressing
w
Please stop all this ADSP "good"/ADSP "bad" repetition.
ADSP is finished WGLC and the only thing on our agenda
for it now is pushing it further along the process.
The might, or might not, require some minor change as a
result of the resolution one of the 16 errata for 4871,
however, forgetting A
SM wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> At 17:00 09-03-2009, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Firstly, we're not authors in the sense of being personally
>> responsible for each word - the ability and willingness to write
>> something with which you disagree is laudable in many cases and
Does the subject line and the endless rehashing of old arguments imply
that there is, in fact, no recession and that we all have plenty of
time to do all this for the n-th time?
*Please* re-read and opine on Barry's message, and not on this aged
topic.
S.
On 9 Mar 2009, at 23:48, Douglas Ot
On 9 Mar 2009, at 22:47, SM wrote:
> At 14:17 09-03-2009, John Levine wrote:
>> I sign all my mail, but there's no way I can say that with ADSP. In
>> its current form, ADSP is broken and useless.
>
> Given that one of the authors of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09 states that
> ADSP is broken and usel
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> Please offer a better way of indicating that mail is always signed.
Actually, please don't. We were chartered to do ADSP and we've
(almost) done that. Unless someone's looking to recharter I don't
see how this list is relevant for other ways to do what ADSP doe
Michael Thomas wrote:
> In any case, I'd like to understand the process by which a substantial
> change in semantics is allowed under the rubric of "errata".
I also believe "substantial change" is not allowed and wouldn't
get the ok from our AD to use the RFC editor's errata process.
However, a
So I think this thread seems to have descended into the
fairly pointless and unproductive category. Maybe let's
leave it there while Barry and I tot up the responses
to the concensus call and see what we (as chairs) make
of that.
In particular:
Michael Thomas wrote:
> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> A nu
Hi All,
We've had some recent discussion about d=/i= on the list
and a couple of concrete proposals for clarifications to
make to RFC 4871.
- The first is Dave's erratum I-D. [1]
- The second is a proposal from Eliot.[2]
Barry and I would like to see if there's rough consensus
on one of th
Folks,
Please hold off on +1's etc until Barry & I respond to Dave's
request for a WGLC. If and when we do WGLC then you'll need
to resend anyway, so there's no need now.
S.
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Consequently, I'd like to ask that we go through a working group Last Call
> for
> rfc4871-errata-02.
Barry and I are just pinging about with Pasi on some process stuff but
will be back to get this started/sorted in a day or two.
S.
__
John Levine wrote:
> Except that the UAID might or might not be an e-mail address. The one
> on this messgage isn't.
So, for clarity, can you (or someone) call out what you think is
the impact, if any, for ADSP, caused by this proposed change to
4871.
Thanks,
Stephen.
Thanks Dave (and the other's acked) for taking this on
and making a firm proposal.
I guess we've a couple of questions related to this:
Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of
the erratum?
Separately, is the best route from here to do a 4871bis
(assuming the 5378 mess gets sorte
Folks,
There are some issues with the new IPR policies outlined in
RFC 5378 that I would like to bring to your attention. Please
read through the writeups that other folks have provided and
make your own judgement. Discussion of this should take place
on the IETF list and not here.
Stephen.
>---
Hi Dave,
I think you're making a reasonable point below about 4871.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> I don't believe this discussion is necessary in order to progress the
>> ADSP draft, which, for better or worse, is where the W
Folks,
Can we restrict ourselves to the subject on the subject
line or start a separate thread?
I don't believe this discussion is necessary in order to
progress the ADSP draft, which, for better or worse, is
where the WG's rough consensus ended up.
Thanks,
Stephen.
John L wrote:
> That would be fine with me, but what it says now is that the i= MUST match
> the From: address. As I've said a few times, that's clearly wrong, but I
> got shouted down in the past when I tried to change it.
Without getting into the merits of the argument (and I don't think we
Hi,
I don't think we posted these to the list yet, so here
they are. [1]
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/dkim.txt
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Hi Pasi,
The authors have pushed out a new version of ADSP. [1]
I've just had a look at the diffs [2] between that and
the previous one, and they seem to have covered your
AD comments fairly well, so hopefully you'll be ok with
starting IETF LC after you've had a chance to check
their changes.
Thanks Tony,
If there are no objections, we'll forward these to Pasi to
take action (i.e. update the errata pages) in one week from
now,
Stephen.
Tony Hansen wrote:
> Here's a description of the errata conclusions that were made at today's
> meeting. If anyone disagrees, speak now.
>
> T
Hi All,
A bit late (sorry;-) but I've now posted a draft
agenda. [1]
Let Barry & I know if there are any changes/additions
needed - we do have time if necessary.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/agenda/dkim.txt
___
NOTE WE
Doug,
That was discussed at length in the WG and we ended up
where we ended up.
I'm sure you'll make the point again in IETF LC, (which is
entirely fine), but we don't need to revisit the topic on
this list, so please stop raising it here.
If you think you have some compelling reason that we
sh
Oops - probably just by me, sorry. (Found it in a wrong folder.)
S.
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Apparently this got missed. Re-sending...
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ietf-dkim@m
em, as it
> provides approximately that capability in what would be a standardized
> way. I realize there will be some disagreement whether this is a good
> idea, but that's what a chartering discussion is all about.
Ok. Looks like a good agenda item for MSP. But of course, folks shou
Folks, we've had no response so far to this request for new
work items. If that remains the case, Barry and I plan to
let our AD know that its time to declare victory for DKIM and
that we'll be heading into dormant mode after the next
meeting (which should be very short).
Stephen
Thanks Pasi,
I'll work with the authors to get their reactions back to the list
and we can go from there,
Cheers,
S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've done my AD review for draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06, and I was happy
> to see that the document is in good shape.
>
> I do have couple of sugge
Hi All,
In Dublin [1] we had a few proposals for new work items and presentation
of some related work (Murray's stuff). We agreed with the AD that we
would not start a discussion about potentially re-chartering until after
ADSP and the overview were out of the WG. Well, we're there now, ADSP is
w
e that silence
> means everyone's OK with them.)
>
> Best regards,
> Pasi
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ext
>> Stephen Farrell
>> Sent: 29 September, 2008 12:44
>> To: ietf
Hi all,
We need to give Pasi guidance on the WG's opinion of the
various errata [1] that've been posted for RFC 4871.
Most of these were generated as a result of the good interop
work done earlier, so this should hopefully be easy.
We need to tell Pasi if we think the errata as posted
should be
h the process.
Personnel
Stephen Farrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is the shepherd for this
document.
PROTO write-up:
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document
Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular,
does he or she believe
Sorry, let me clarify. WGLC is done. I was only interested
in getting "+1 to publish" or "I agree with Doug" responses.
We're done with this document.
Thanks,
Stephen.
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-ru
Thanks John,
So this means that we're not taking on board the various
suggestions in Doug's draft since they didn't garner
any real support. I think that's correct, but just in
case - if there's a whole bunch of folks out there who
agree with Doug's draft so much that they think we
should not pro
Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> This note is to start WGLC for the overview document. [1]
>>>
>>> Given its vacation time, WGLC will run for 4 weeks from
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> This note is to start WGLC for the ADSP document. [1]
>
> Given its vacation time, WGLC will run for 4 weeks from
> now, ending on September 3rd.
And this closes WGLC for ADSP.
I think we got the following comments:-
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> This note is to start WGLC for the overview document. [1]
>
> Given its vacation time, WGLC will run for 4 weeks from
> now, ending on September 3rd.
And this note closes WGLC.
I believe we got the following comment:-
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf
Folks,
FYI - I've submitted a meeting request for a 1 hour session and
asked that it not be Monday or Friday.
We can start agendising later, but feel free to let Barry
and I know if you'd like a slot now (and for what and for how
long). If we're looking like 1 hour is too short I can modify
the
Eliot,
I believe we can now close all of the issues mentioned in the minutes
just sent out. (Almost all of those were previously flagged for
closure a few weeks ago.)
Can you do that on Friday, just to give people a last chance to check
if I messed up?
Thanks,
Stephen.
I've expanded on the summary posted earlier at [1]. Please
send any comments by the end of this week (I'll be on
vacation thereafter).
Stephen.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/dkim.txt
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
This note is to start WGLC for the overview document. [1]
Given its vacation time, WGLC will run for 4 weeks from
now, ending on September 3rd.
Thanks,
Stephen.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-ietf-dkim-overview/
___
NOTE WELL: This list oper
1 - 100 of 863 matches
Mail list logo
