On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> The current focus should be on finishing the interoperability document, > not which protocol project(s) ought to progress toward standardization. > I quite agree. The ask to coordinate the interop document against various other (potential) documents seems like a layer violation :-) With that said, I believe that I have incorporated all of the comments which were received on the interop document (with the exception of a missing 't' in one place which should read "latter" instead of "later") into the -10 revision (posted earlier this week). Any further inputs before we call this one done? --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
