Stephen Farrell wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
No-one spoke against that, so please consider this closed/rejected.
You're quite wrong.
If so, apologies. Can you point me at the mail archive please? (I
mean since we discussed this in the jabber session and I posted
the summary.)
It's probably worth mentioning that some people speaking in favor of
something does not rough consensus make. I put these provisional requirement
into the draft to try to distill out what was on the list to see if they
would *then*
achieve rough consensus. If it did not achieve rough consensus, I'd then
remove
it from the draft. From what I can tell -- and I'm not the chair here --
at least as many people are against this requirement as are for it,
which is not
generally considered to be rough consensus in my understanding.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html