On 5/11/11 1:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 5/11/2011 10:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> I suspect you would find signficant objection to making it a PS.
>>
>> Probably not if it's made into an Applicability Statement:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2
>
>
> That's sim
On 5/10/11 8:45 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> ...this document might be suitable for Pete's "Applicability Statement"
> experiment, at
> the Proposed Standard level.
>
Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is a good idea...
I am of course pleased to see that Barry has interest in my e
On 5/11/2011 10:17 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> I suspect you would find signficant objection to making it a PS.
>
> Probably not if it's made into an Applicability Statement:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2
That's simultaneously a reasonable and a terrible idea.
The co
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:47 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: DKIM Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] PROTO writeup for draft-ietf
John R. Levine wrote:
>> This is a valid point. Sean, please consider that the working group
>> did not discuss the possibility of changing the status from BCP to
>> Proposed Standard. You might remove that from the writeup.
>
> I suspect you would find signficant objection to making it a PS.
>
> This is a valid point. Sean, please consider that the working group
> did not discuss the possibility of changing the status from BCP to
> Proposed Standard. You might remove that from the writeup.
I suspect you would find signficant objection to making it a PS.
Considering how little of the
> Perhaps I missed the working group discussion that agreed to this approach?
This is a valid point. Sean, please consider that the working group
did not discuss the possibility of changing the status from BCP to
Proposed Standard. You might remove that from the writeup.
Barry, as chair
___
On 5/11/2011 8:22 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> 3. As negotiating model's go, it is counter-productive to open with a
>> fall-back offer.
Offering to participate in an unformulated experiment that has no schedule is a
fallback, yes.
> There is no sense in which this is a "fall-back". I see it a
> 1. The offer primarily serves to suggest that the document has questionable
> purpose or clarity.
Offering to make the document a Proposed Standard, on the standards
track, suggests that it's questionable? I fail to see that.
> 3. As negotiating model's go, it is counter-productive to open wi
Barry,
On 5/10/2011 6:45 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The DKIM Working Group requests the publication of
> draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10 as a BCP. Alternatively, this document
> might be suitable for Pete's "Applicability Statement" experiment, at
> the Proposed Standard level.
Why are you suggest
I'm sorry, Hector: I can't understand what you're saying in this
message, nor what you want done.
Barry, as chair
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:35, Hector Santos wrote:
>> There is consensus of the working group, as a whole, behind it. A
>> minority of participants feel that the advice given in th
Barry Leiba wrote:
> The DKIM Working Group requests the publication of
> draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10 as a BCP. Alternatively, this document
> might be suitable for Pete's "Applicability Statement" experiment, at
> the Proposed Standard level.
>
> Please see the attached PROTO writeup.
>
> Ba
The DKIM Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10 as a BCP. Alternatively, this document
might be suitable for Pete's "Applicability Statement" experiment, at
the Proposed Standard level.
Please see the attached PROTO writeup.
Barry, DKIM working group chair
PROTO
13 matches
Mail list logo
