Just to be clear here: On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 9:06 AM Todd Herr <todd= 40someguyinva....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:52 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> I am asking a question about what I believe to currently be one possible >> outcome of this group's work, based both on the content of the documents >> that entered "call for adoption" state in the last 12 hours and the meeting >> itself from last night (US/ET). >> >> I haven't seen the transcript of the meeting -- I screwed up with time >> zones -- so I have no idea what was "called for adoption". >> > > There were three posts to this mailing list sometime after midnight US/ET > today referencing three different documents that are "Candidates for WG > Adoption": > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/k_u_-Uo4CoZhsdsZj1PcE90-DyA/ > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/02EQpkoJFba0FwAZjsZ2nph9qO8/ > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/H8-h9a0KcBOFjAC4hF499OS6BZY/ > > Apologies if my terminology was inaccurate. > No call for adoption (CFA) has been issued. I marked these as "Candidate for WG Adoption" as a first step in that direction, sort-of to "claim" them as belonging to this WG and to indicate that a CFA is imminent. I did this because that was the consensus of the room in Bangkok, i.e., that these three documents are where the WG appears to want to start. Now, in their current state, we've made no such commitment, only expressed an intent consistent with the consensus in the room. Once the CFAs are open, we can debate whether we think adoption or any or all of them would be premature. All WG business must be confirmed on lists. The CFA discussion will happen on-list. Those are imminent, as soon as I post some minutes and catch up on the rest of the discussion. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
