[ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?
lear at cisco.com
Fri May 8 02:31:44 PDT 2009
On 5/8/09 7:07 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the specification
> at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're
> discussing for the -bis effort.)
> Have you heard otherwise?
That would be me. Refer to recent messages, please. The standard,
IMHO, is not sufficiently baked, given the recent change.
More information about the ietf-dkim