[ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues
in January using jabber/concalls....
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Dec 11 10:43:37 PST 2007
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> I guess my question is why you felt the need to post this, Stephen?
> (Sigh.) For information. In the past, with this WG, the IESG
> were ok with us not strictly adhering to the 30-day notice
> requirement, i.e. they then considered that we were giving
> sufficient notice.
> IMO we've thrashed this one enough.
Perhaps you missed the fact that you didn't answer my question, Stephen.
I didn't ask you to repeat the information that you had just supplied. I
asked why you chose to post it.
Saying "for information" doesn't answer the question.
Since you had already indicated you were querying the ADs, what was the
purpose of responding to my note with a claim that precedent had already been
established, particularly after I had noted why I thought the issue was
ps. interesting that engineering precedents don't seem important to you, but
process ones do.
ps. And thanks for the (sigh). Very helpful.
More information about the ietf-dkim