Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> Referring back to my message, I'm advocating that if we do anything, we >> move to Draft Standard, and advocating that we not do another spin at >> Proposed Standard. So are we agreeing? > > 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? I don't know why it's my job to look this up in the list archives, but anyway:
In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011923.html , Eliot Lear says: > I would recycle at proposed, if we are going to do anything at all. In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011924.html , Suresh Ramasubramanian says: > -bis - yes. Definitely. > > > 2. On whether to move to draft standard > > > > While I was initially in favor of this, I am now uncomfortable doing so, > > based on the lengthy debate we just concluded about errata. To me the > > Qualified approval based on consensus gained in the -bis draft. Which I think says "do -bis as Proposed Standard, then maybe go to Draft". Hope I have interpreted Suresh's comments accurately. In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011925.html , John Levine says: > >2. On whether to move to draft standard > > I wouldn't bother. It makes no difference in the outside world, so I'd > rather direct our limited time to -bis. > In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011931.html , Jeff Macdonald seems to agree with Suresh. So, yes, I have heard otherwise. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
