[ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

[Dave Crocker]

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.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net