-----Original Message-----
From: spfbis-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:spfbis-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:44 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: spfbis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt>
(Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the SPF Update WG (spfbis) to
consider the following document:
- 'Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments'
<draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-06-09. Exceptionally, comments
may
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
In my quest to ensure I'm never done with a document I'm editing, I reviewed
this myself and found a couple of things I plan to change after Last Call
completes. They are either grammar corrections or removal of redundant text,
and aren't substantive, so I don't expect they're controversial. So just to
head off other reviewers' comments:
1) The Introduction's first and second paragraph contain substantially
identical text. This will be trimmed.
2) In the Analysis section, I believe conclusions 4 and 6 are redundant. I
propose to remove 6.
3) There are a few places where I should've used "that" instead of "which".
-MSK