[ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

[J D Falk]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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.

Yep...given the lack of further comment about the recurring phone calls,
I assumed they wouldn't be happening and will instead be unavailable
during that time.

That's just me, though, and I'm assuming there'll be both a transcript
and an opportunity for further comment afterwards -- right?

--
J.D. Falk
Receiver Products
Return Path