So I only got a few responses to this, all saying they
couldn't make it and none asking to keep the slot
tomorrow.
So we won't jabber tomorrow and I guess since the meeting
is nearly upon us we won't do it next week either.
However, I'd ask that the people who raised current
issues [1], say on the list, whether they think they've
been resolved or not with the current draft. Please try
do that this week if you can.
Cheers,
Stephen.
[1]
https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20'open'%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20'new')&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format=
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi All,
I've been told that there's a MAAWG [1] meeting that might conflict
with this date/time. If so, feel free to suggest a better one that's
between then and say the following Tuesday (31st).
Better if such suggestions are made off list, and Barry and I
will figure what fits most people best. Or, if you really prefer
the current Thursday slot, do say so (off list probably being
better there again).
Thanks,
Stephen.
[1] http://www.maawg.org/
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Folks,
I'd like us to try to go over the open issues with ssp-reqs in
a jabber session on Thursday. Hopefully, we'll have a bunch of
them where we can just agree that they've been handled in the
latest draft, and we can then start a WG last call on ssp-reqs
(to end at the end of the IETF meeting week).
So, jabbering at 1500 UTC on Thursday 26th for one hour. (I
assume no one's clocks have changed yet, but didn't check.)
Cheers,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html