On 5/8/09 7:07 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the > specification > at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're > discussing for the -bis effort.) > > Have you heard otherwise? > >
That would be me. Refer to recent messages, please. The standard, IMHO, is not sufficiently baked, given the recent change. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
