IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Fri, 20 February 2009 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE7F28C0FF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:32:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZzpTQqunBbm for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9B13A6784 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:32:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BD320E412D; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:33:02 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1235097183; bh=Lz737kpSab9fMuQ3yoUAFlSYUkPREHWh6NlaGb9EsTY=; h=Mime-Version:To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:From: Date:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=HUEjCIsBya9tumcSE0H2gIZAh4vjeht5W1/EY5WDr4TGVxN490q8XRF5GQdKPnsjC 7EPhM1r65FOs9/0rTq/dyEjO7CaDYLr/29C7OVVU4lAzwjM/m4nmvjvCYi6R+uFid+ +q/lz7A2t2pIT+aLxXi3xI3ru2QxFIXLz2OzK8Kc=
Received: from [75.196.55.86] (86.sub-75-196-55.myvzw.com [75.196.55.86]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0AF620E40FD; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:33:01 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: SnapperMail 2.5.0.06 by Snapperfish
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments requested on recent appeal to the IESG
Message-ID: <32672-SnapperMsgD8DB99B6C5C3C6DD@[75.196.55.86]>
In-Reply-To: <499E0FAF.8050508@dcrocker.net>
References: <20090220013123.A3F113A69A3@core3.amsl.com> <499E0FAF.8050508@dcrocker.net>
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:32:54 -0500
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:32:50 -0000

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:04:31 -0800 Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>This appeal lacks merit on basic points.
>
+1.  I don't think I could have said it better myself.  

I was involved in the MARID and DKIM working groups and was involved in the 
group that helped put together this draft.  All these points have been made 
before and got not traction in these various venues.

Scott K
Scott K

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status