[ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02
lear at cisco.com
Thu Feb 12 10:49:54 PST 2009
Just to be clear, what will happen next if there is a WGLC is that I
will post isssues. There may be quite a number of them. If on the
other hand, we can poll on process, I will refrain from posting issues
On 2/12/09 7:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> 1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple, direct support.
>> And Murray also indicated support, at least in part,
> In part is different from complete.
> I happen to support your proposal... in part. Unfortunately, the
> remainder of my assessment results in non-support.
> In any event, it's ok if my assessment isn't fully accurate: postings
> about the draft will determine whether in fact there is rough
> consensus support for it.
>>> 2. My request was for +1/-1 postings on
>>> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02, not a request for a multi-stage
>>> sequence starting with meta-questions about process.
>> Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I consider
>> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the problem at
>> hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on
> And if the rest of the working group agrees with you, then the draft
> won't attain rough consensus.
More information about the ietf-dkim