[ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

[Dave Crocker]

Barry Leiba wrote:
> Eliot has set us up for a conference call this Thursday, 17 Jan, as we'd 
> originally scheduled back in December (actually, we'd planned to start 
> on 10 Jan, but we didn't make that; see "delay" above).  It'll go along 
> with a jabber meeting, for which we'll use the normal DKIM jabber chat 
> room, < dkim at jabber.ietf.org >.

Actually, you originally said January 3.  Then we heard nothing about the 
matter for a month.  That was the last note I see posted on this matter from 
your or Steve, with no resolution as to schedule:

> Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Barry Leiba said:
>>> I should point out that we're off by ONE DAY on the 30-day notice issue.
>>> If you think we should toss out the 9 Jan session on that basis, OK, 
>>> we will.
...
>> Still, the rest of what I said stands:  If any participants, or the ADs, 
>> think that 23 days' notice isn't sufficient, or that 3 Jan is too close 
>> to the new year, we can lose that one and start on 10 Jan.


So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice really is 
required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow acceptable.  (RFC2418, 
Section 3.1

And no, this isn't about being a stickler about the rules.  It's about being 
inclusive.

Using the two "rejected" issues as metrics, it looks a lot as if we aren't 
really trying to resolve issues on the mailing list.  That's a mistake, since 
that is the most inclusive channel.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net