On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 09:16 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
> go ahead would respond to this saying so.
+1
- Roland
--
Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd
3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 0486
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
> go ahead would respond to this saying so. I
+1
Jon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFI2HIasTedWZOD3gYRAn4ZAKC4GG6eIkYfDOOg2oDWHWdnC
+1 on moving forward with draft-ietf-dkim-ssp.
After re-reading it afresh, a couple nits are noted below.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please replace RFC 2821 with draft-klensin-rfc2821bis. The latter is
in AUTH48 to be published as RFC 5321 and will obsolete 2821.
C
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 19:04 -0500, Al Iverson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > J D Falk:
> >> On 20/09/2008 08:06, "Dave CROCKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >> >> It might be no harm if folks wh
: Re: [ietf-dkim] Progressing ADSP (Was: Re: New Version Notification
for draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06 (fwd))
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
> go ahead would respond to this saying so.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetW
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J D Falk:
>> On 20/09/2008 08:06, "Dave CROCKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> >> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
>> >> go ahead would respond to this saying so
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 6:49 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Progressing ADSP (Was: Re: New Version
> Notificatio
J D Falk:
> On 20/09/2008 08:06, "Dave CROCKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
> >> go ahead would respond to this saying so.
> >
> > +1
>
> +1
+1.
Wietse
_
On 20/09/2008 08:06, "Dave CROCKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
>> go ahead would respond to this saying so.
>
> +1
+1
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path
Work with me!
http://www.returnpath.net/careers/
___
On Sep 20, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> 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.
Absolutely, I don't expect (nor want) any change. I just want
something to point at i
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
SM wrote:
> "In all cases, new values are assigned only for values that have been
>documented in a published RFC"
>
> RFCs are generally published. That word could be dropped from the sentence.
You are technically correct. However, the term "draft RFC" is relatively
common.
d/
--
At 01:16 20-09-2008, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I'll give folks the weekend to check that and for any
>new typos then send the publication request to Pasi.
In Section 5:
"In all cases, new values are assigned only for values that have been
documented in a published RFC"
RFCs are generally publ
On Sep 20, 2008, at 1:16 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> 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
> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
> go ahead would respond to this saying so.
+1
Arvel
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> It might be no harm if folks who do think ADSP should
> go ahead would respond to this saying so.
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mi
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
