Re: [spfbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

My apologies: A typo rendering a sentence incoherent that I missed 
before hitting "Send":

On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>> * The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
>>> that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in 
>>> that they
>>> set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring 
>>> failure.
>
> I think you're going to need substantially more explanation (and 
> perhaps some data) to make a convincing case that RFC 6686 needs to be 
> reconsidered, thereby affecting this last call. The above states a 
> conclusion, but provides no data or explanation. I don't know how to 
> evaluation this.

Of course, I meant, "I don't know how to *evaluate* this."

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]