On 10/2/2013 11:46 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
wrote:
If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
As in, duh...
"Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents t
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> I don't believe this would be a fair assessment of industry wide support
> -- using only one API to measure. There are other APIs and proprietary
> systems who most likely are not part of the OpenDKIM group. There are
> commercial operatio
On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2013 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
>>
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
>>> the following status changes:
>>>
>>> - RFC5617 from Prop
>> Hi. Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of
>> what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but
>> the writeup at
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
>> says "to Internet Standard". Can one or the other be corrected?
>
>
On 10/2/2013 5:04 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
the following status changes:
- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
The supporting document for this request can be
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:41 AM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> the following status changes:
>
> - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org
I assume we will need to agree to disagree about this, but...
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 10:44 -0700 Dave Crocker
wrote:
> If a spec is Historic, it is redundant to say not recommended.
> As in, duh...
"Duh" notwithstanding, we move documents to Historic for many
reasons. RFC 2026 lists
On 10/2/2013 9:28 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
After reading the description at the link cited above and
assuming that "Historic" is actually intended, I wonder,
procedurally, whether a move to Historic without document other
than in the tracker is an appropriate substitute for the
publication of an
Hi,
The subject lines says the intention is to move to Internet Standard; the
text says the intention is to move to Historic.
This Last Call should probably be re-published with matching intent.
David Harrington
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-announc
> Hi. Just to be sure that everyone has the same understanding of
> what is being proposed here, the above says "to Historic" but
> the writeup at
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
> says "to Internet Standard". Can one or the other be corrected?
Gakk. I
--On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 07:41 -0700 The IESG
wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant
> to make the following status changes:
>
> - RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> http://d
>The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
>the following status changes:
>
>- RFC5617 from Proposed Standard to Historic
>
>The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
I'm one o
12 matches
Mail list logo
