In <40CE8EAF(_dot_)4050505(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> Matthew Elvey
<matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> writes:
On 6/11/2004 11:04 AM, wayne sent forth electrons to convey:
You guys are raising good and interesting points about both the pros
and cons of things like MTAMARK, but this is all irrelevant. Since
the interim meeting, all 2821 proposals are now out of scope.
I'm sorry, but I WAS at the interim meeting. I believe that was NOT
decided.
In which of the 13 items mentioned in the minutes is this?
Perhaps I was out of the room.
Yes, I know you were at the meeting also, as were several others.
I've asked around and apparently what I remember isn't at all what
others remember.
What I remember is that near the end of the second day, there were
three hums taking in quick succession. The first asked if MARID
should pursue the Caller-ID/SPF thing, and I remember a loud hum.
Then I clearly remember someone (Ted? Andy?) saying that this would
mean that we wouldn't pursue 2821 proposals, which I was quite
surprised by, and I remember others being unclear on this. So, a
second hum was taking on the issue of whether we should pursue both,
and there wasn't a rough consensus that we should. Finally, after a
little more discussion, a hum was taken as to whether we should go
back to the 2821 issue after we have finished 2821, and I seem to
recall a consensus on that.
What Markus has said re. RFC 2418 / 3.3 is correct,
Agreed.
to which I should add that IMO, the minutes are not accurate regarding
the hum - as I'd discussed with a chair, and IIRC, he said he's
planning to revise in a new minutes version.
Well, memories are fading.
If my memory is wrong, I will actually be very happy. I really don't
want the 2821 proposals being off the table. If my faulty memory has
created confusion and problems, please accept my apologies.
-wayne