John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: A little unclear on the domain names in section 3.2 and 4.2.1.
>
Um, my bad. :-) Next time I'll register my example domain names before
I use them!
But seriously, if you want me to change it, I'd be happy to since it
appears you own the domain (as
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 07:55:19AM -0500, Barry Leiba allegedly wrote:
> >* If you have reviewed the threats doc and think it's ready, please say
> >so explicitly.
I think it's ready. The doc has sufficiently advanced and had
considerable refinement that it's time to get feedback on our
progress
>* If you have reviewed the threats doc and think it's ready, please say
>so explicitly.
I think it's fine as is. None of the open issues are worth addressing
in this document.
R's,
John
PS: A little unclear on the domain names in section 3.2 and 4.2.1.
>> * If you have reviewed the threats doc and think it's ready, please
>> say so explicitly.
The threats doc looks good to me. Let's go with it.
--
Arvel
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
On 14 Mar 2006, at 4:55 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Hello?
Is this microphone working?
Testing... testing...
Can you hear me?
Repeating two things in particular:
* If you have reviewed the threats doc and think it's ready,
please say so explicitly.
...because:
I particularly want to make sur
Jim Fenton wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
Hello?
Is this microphone working?
Testing... testing...
Can you hear me?
Yes, you sound fine back here.
Huh? Did he say his microwave's leaking?
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipa
Barry Leiba wrote:
>
> Hello?
>
> Is this microphone working?
> Testing... testing...
> Can you hear me?
Yes, you sound fine back here.
>
> Repeating two things in particular:
>
>> * Please look at the open issues list that Stephen posted the other
>> day, and comment on the dispositions, giving
Hello?
Is this microphone working?
Testing... testing...
Can you hear me?
Repeating two things in particular:
* Please look at the open issues list that Stephen posted the other day,
and comment on the dispositions, giving primary importance to those
against the threats doc.
* If you have
Since we have only one week now before the IETF meeting, I'd like to see
us hold off on all discussion that does not have to do with open or new
issues with the two documents we're currently focused on: threats and base.
Getting the terminology right is important, but let's please not spend
al
