On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:55:05 -0700 Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Before I attempt to answer Dave's question, I have two questions for the
1. Is discussion of ADSP on the list in order again?
2. It sounds like what's being proposed here is a "do over" of the WG
and IETF Last Calls on the ADSP specification, by making a substantial
change. Is that in order?
I have a somewhat related question. It seems to me that this latest round of
"let's redo ADSP
again" was kicked off by a need to change ADSP due to the pending DKIM-base
How is it possible that a design that has been through WGLC needs to be changed
due to errata
for an RFC it is built on and that errata is not making changes to the IETF of
protocol is? Compared to most of you I'm pretty new to IETF processes and
so I' appreciate some help understanding this.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to