>>> MAY != SHOULD
>> The text is as follows: "The name SHOULD be fully qualified whenever
>> possible". If the working group would like a RFC 2119 SHOULD it
>> would help if there is an explanation in the sentence for the reader
>> weigh the implications of not following that.
> My knee-jerk react
On 5/8/2013 10:50 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Heather, all,
You are correct, Peter. MISSREF and AUTH48 are not part of the RFC
Editor timed states, and the RFC Editor timed states have been largely
under 7 weeks for the last year.
Indeed. The actual time for what RFC Editor does for documents is q
--On Thursday, May 09, 2013 09:28 +0200 Randy Bush
wrote:
>> Similarly, "wherever possible" is unhelpful; if it's not
>> possible to fully-qualify a domain name then ambiguity is
>> guaranteed.
>
> no, that is what SHOLD means. e.g. when i write docco that
> has an ops clause where there is l
--On Thursday, May 09, 2013 03:32 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
wrote:
> So in this case, we're looking at "RFC Editor state" =
> "Heather, please do something" + "some working group, please
> do something" + "author(s), please do something", and we can't
> tell how much time to attribute to each of th
On 10/05/2013 01:13, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Thursday, May 09, 2013 03:32 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
> wrote:
>
>> So in this case, we're looking at "RFC Editor state" =
>> "Heather, please do something" + "some working group, please
>> do something" + "author(s), please do something", and we
Dear ietf, spfbis, and repute,
Until an identifier is linked with the source of an exchange by way of
authentication, it must not be trusted as offering valid reputation input. For
example, a valid DKIM signature lacks important context. A valid DKIM
signature does not depend upon actual sourc
Total of 138 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 10 00:53:02 EDT 2013
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
7.25% | 10 | 8.90% |93387 | ma...@isc.org
6.52% |9 | 7.85% |82311 | nar...@us.ibm.com
