[ietf-dkim] SSP issues status
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Jan 15 19:17:10 PST 2008
Jim Fenton 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
> I penciled in the meetings when they were originally proposed, not sure
> why this is a surprise to people.
Because there was no follow-through to confirm the dates, after the first date
was questioned and because nothing happened for the first two dates.
> January 3 and 10 got cancelled for
> various reasons (proximity to the holidays and lack of 30-day notice, I
> think) but the rest are still there.
They got canceled? Oh.
When did that happen? Pointer to the archive, please.
More information about the ietf-dkim