Eliot, I for one would prefer a straight up +1/-1 vote on the errata draft as it stands.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: DKIM IETF WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group LastCall on: draft-ietf- > dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 > > 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 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
