Eliot,
I for one would prefer a straight up +1/-1 vote on the errata draft as
it stands.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:50 PM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group LastCall on:
draft-ietf-
dkim-rfc4871-errata-02
Just to be clear, what will happen next if there is a WGLC is that I
will post isssues. There may be quite a number of them. If on the
other hand, we can poll on process, I will refrain from posting issues
later.
Eliot
On 2/12/09 7:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
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