Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF

Greg Connor wrote:

Is there another bad side effect of not setting a schedule
that I didn't pick up on?


Quite the contrary, a "flag day" in an RfC doesn't fly, it's
too obviously wishful thinking.  You can only offer a better
way, you can't enforce it.
                            Bye, Frank

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, (continued) Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Greg Connor Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Roger Moser Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Stephane Bortzmeyer Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Roger Moser Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, wayne Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Roger Moser Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, wayne Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Roger Moser Re: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Roger Moser RE: Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Guy Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann <= RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, wayne Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, jpinkerton RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, william(at)elan.net Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, william(at)elan.net Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Frank Ellermann Re: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, jpinkerton RE: [IETF] Allocation of the new RR type for SPF, Hallam-Baker, Phillip