[ietf-dkim] SSP issues status
steve at blighty.com
Tue Jan 15 09:52:37 PST 2008
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:15 AM, J D Falk wrote:
> 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
> 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?
More information about the ietf-dkim