Barry Leiba said:
I should point out that we're off by ONE DAY on the 30-day notice issue.
If you think we should toss out the 9 Jan session on that basis, OK, we
will.
Um, as y'all've noticed, my brain said "9 Jan", though Stephen said "3
Jan". So, yes, we're short a week, not a day, on the 30-day notice.
Still, the rest of what I said stands: If any participants, or the ADs,
think that 23 days' notice isn't sufficient, or that 3 Jan is too close
to the new year, we can lose that one and start on 10 Jan.
Dave, it's not clear whether you actually object to it, or whether
you're just concerned that others might have a problem with it, and are
noting that it's not standard procedure.
Scott Kitterman said:
> Personally, I'm not aware of any such complaints and I think in
> an open entity such as the IETF, secret complaints should get no
> weight.
Well, for better or worse, there are often reasons not to make
complaints public, and we do consider them, at least at the early
stages. I personally think that's for the better. Eventually, if the
complaint is overruled and the plaintiff wants to appeal that decision,
s/he will have to go public. But we digress....
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html