ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC

2012-05-29 14:04:47
-----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



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt> (Resolution of The SPF and Sender ID Experiments) to Informational RFC, Murray S. Kucherawy <=