Eliot Lear wrote:
On 5/8/09 7:07 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the
specification
at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're
discussing for the -bis effort.)
Have you heard otherwise?
That would be me. Refer to recent messages, please. The standard,
IMHO, is not sufficiently baked, given the recent change.
Eliot,
I asked Jim a question. He answered it. His answers was completely different
from yours, yet you were purporting to (again) answer on his behalf.
So while of course it's fine for you to have and express your own opinion,
"That
would be me" is not correct.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html