On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:39:45 +0100 Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> >> Eliot Lear wrote: >>> You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has >>> offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept. I would >>> be happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you >>> would like. >> >> >> 1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple, direct support. > >And Murray also indicated support, at least in part, but had questions >about whether I felt it was appropriate to address your core concern >about having a single gazzouta, and wanted an answer, which I gave. > >> >> 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.
+1 (since we're counting). Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
