Keith Moore wrote:
DKIM as currently described in the I-Ds is a lot more broken than that,
but they're not listening either.
Eh - to be fair, your concerns wrt DKIM haven't been posted to that
list since roughly the Vancouver BoF at which you took an action to
propose some charter text you liked better ([1], action item #1).
I can understand that you may be reluctant to dive back in having
seen the WG formed but I think "not listening" isn't really correct.
Maybe you meant "didn't listen"?
Anyway the general point that getting people who've agreed to do
reviews, to actually do them, is another problem to add to your list
(as I know from the secdir reviews where I'm currently some weeks
behind),
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/minutes?item=minutes64.txt
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf