http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal-otis-2009-02-16.txt
This appeal boils down to someone might misuse it so don't
standardize it. Is there any standard to which someone couldn't have
made a similar objection?
Much of the bad stuff they say about SPF and Sender-ID is correct, but
it'll
On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
When will http://xml.resource.org/ and xml2rfc be updated to include
this?
It is in work. A precise date is uncertain today, but is anticipated
early next week.
Are there any changes we need to make to our input xml files?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:31:23 -0800 (PST), The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received an appeal regarding the previously approved
draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-20. The appeal text can be
found here:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/appeal-otis-2009-02-16.txt
[...]
I am the author of the
--On Friday, February 20, 2009 10:57 -0500 Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
When will http://xml.resource.org/ and xml2rfc be updated to
include this?
It is in work. A precise date is uncertain today, but is
On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, February 20, 2009 10:57 -0500 Ray Pelletier
rpellet...@isoc.org wrote:
On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
When will http://xml.resource.org/ and xml2rfc be updated to
include this?
It is in work.
Ray,
The expectation in that January discussion was that the Trustees
and IAOC were going to be proactive about this and take
responsibility to make sure things got done. I don't consider
your notifying the volunteers and asking for a schedule to be
consistent with that. They are, after all,
John, this is to respond to one of your points, below:
As far as the where does it go question, the answer may be
clear to you, but it apparently was not clear to the Trustee
Chair (and poster of the announcement) who, according to
comments on the XML2RFC list, apparently indicated that it
Ed,
I very much appreciate the clarification. And, yes, I was
relying on my impression of what someone else reported on the
list, not on anything I heard directly from you.
Of course, that does not make me any happier with the
relationship between what I thought were commitments to have
tools,
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
As there are no new issues raised by this appeal, I respectfully request that
the appeal be dismissed.
+1
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
At 9:00 PM -0800 2/19/09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C99318.3582B8D8
Just as a matter of observation, there is not and never has been a
security requirement to rigidly
Stephen Kent wrote:
At 9:00 PM -0800 2/19/09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Just as a matter of observation, ...
...
I have not read the doc in
question,...
Hey guys. As someone who is frequently faced with trying to parse out what are
and are not the commonly held views among
11 matches
Mail list logo
