Eliot Lear wrote:
On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple, direct support.
And Murray also indicated support, at least in part,
In part is different from complete.
I happen to support your proposal... in part. Unfortunately, the remainder of
my assessment results in non-support.
In any event, it's ok if my assessment isn't fully accurate: postings about
the
draft will determine whether in fact there is rough consensus support for it.
2. My request was for +1/-1 postings on
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02, not a request for a multi-stage
sequence starting with meta-questions about process.
Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I consider
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the problem at
hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on readability.
And if the rest of the working group agrees with you, then the draft won't
attain rough consensus.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html