[ietf-dkim] Processing SSP issues in January using jabber/concalls....

[Dave Crocker]

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 
sensitive now?

d/

ps. interesting that engineering precedents don't seem important to you, but 
process ones do.

ps. And thanks for the (sigh).  Very helpful.

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net