Just to be clear, what will happen next if there is a WGLC is that I will post isssues. There may be quite a number of them. If on the other hand, we can poll on process, I will refrain from posting issues later.
Eliot On 2/12/09 7:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > 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. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
