Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?

ietf-dkim

Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?

2009-05-08 16:50:25


On May 8, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

If so, then it may be that we do have consensus to produce a 4871bis  
that rolls up the errata and makes editorial clarifications that  
garner consensus along the way but no more.

Does that sound about right?


Yes.

-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, (continued) Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Eliot Lear Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Dave CROCKER Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Jim Fenton Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Dave CROCKER Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Eliot Lear Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Dave CROCKER Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Jim Fenton Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Douglas Otis <= Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Steve Atkins Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Suresh Ramasubramanian Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Dave CROCKER Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Steve Atkins Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, John Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Steve Atkins [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process, Steve Atkins Re: [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered: sha1 vs sha256, Tony Hansen

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Stephen Farrell
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Michael Thomas
Previous by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Stephen Farrell
Next by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?, Michael Thomas
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]