Eliot Lear wrote: > On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> 1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple, direct support. > > And Murray also indicated support, at least in part,
In part is different from complete. I happen to support your proposal... in part. Unfortunately, the remainder of my assessment results in non-support. In any event, it's ok if my assessment isn't fully accurate: postings about the draft will determine whether in fact there is rough consensus support for it. >> 2. My request was for +1/-1 postings on >> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02, not a request for a multi-stage >> sequence starting with meta-questions about process. > > Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I consider > draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the problem at > hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on readability. And if the rest of the working group agrees with you, then the draft won't attain rough consensus. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
