On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:55:05 -0700 Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote: >Before I attempt to answer Dave's question, I have two questions for the >Chairs: > >1. Is discussion of ADSP on the list in order again? > >2. It sounds like what's being proposed here is a "do over" of the WG >and IETF Last Calls on the ADSP specification, by making a substantial >change. Is that in order? > I have a somewhat related question. It seems to me that this latest round of "let's redo ADSP again" was kicked off by a need to change ADSP due to the pending DKIM-base errata.
How is it possible that a design that has been through WGLC needs to be changed due to errata for an RFC it is built on and that errata is not making changes to the IETF of what the protocol is? Compared to most of you I'm pretty new to IETF processes and so I' appreciate some help understanding this. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
