IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)

Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> Thu, 30 May 2013 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22A221F93A5 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyUIx9d+aV21 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x22a.google.com (mail-ea0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54C721F8FA3 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f15so541035eak.15 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=hUsVTQX9T5qSvFSPGWn7H7UlqPH58zwlU0fOt0hEbgg=; b=ppxd2m6OCI0HhTK+zPaFhq+dWZFAN82CuUILy1eaG3q2HOqNCXvyt9WKi6dB3I8i8n IZ8OeJ8dB608DJqxtG8A7pBmsoKw/TpTND6YDqFxq5JFrnfmXAhipcXdt/BbITgSVc36 zqnc2Ruo3QE4b8iVEuwS28/t1YHZfJvj0S95TOihoH3qX9lNZxcpFPWtO+0EYm4cWrGs Z9wsyo/D0Pm2RW+kSMx+WK8jYXkQ8FaK6Gys7JBS7j4pJHz7uv/NuzkOH68yivma7bdf xRp75Zd7+UGZ5l92LR+xxvjAqPwf8whAl+3ZDnDo+Af/VWqf92ogX+AXVV0IFF7xcTRF Tqsw==
X-Received: by 10.14.209.135 with SMTP id s7mr10410647eeo.57.1369930578119; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:3180:3e:4005:6271:8a70:55e1? ([2601:9:3180:3e:4005:6271:8a70:55e1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a5sm61315266ees.6.2013.05.30.09.16.16 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130529214234.GB9584@mx1.yitter.info>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:16:16 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3478D7CC-4617-4D80-805F-EBE8A26D2BBF@gmail.com>
References: <A022755E-F8B8-4C82-9F1C-73B8585193BF@gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130528130858.0db81cd0@resistor.net> <CAL0qLwan7JO4t2UB1uWYwwf1MmwhY56szenSY7awT_pNP5UjLg@mail.gmail.com> <B6A88D56-9318-40A3-8E0C-A49EE37A3F3F@gmail.com> <20130529143635.GZ23227@verdi> <CD0B53CE-E90E-4296-B724-0749361D7626@gmail.com> <20130529202145.GA9506@mx1.yitter.info> <20130529212602.5909734DBABF@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20130529214234.GB9584@mx1.yitter.info>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spfbis] The RRTYPE topic (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:16:49 -0000

On May 29, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

> Moderator hat.
> 
> Mark,
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 07:26:01AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> 
>> In message <20130529202145.GA9506@mx1.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
>>> The only reason we decided that we had to do something with TYPE 99
> 
>> And what has been done does NOT fix the perceived interoperability
> 
> If you're going to start a completely irrelevant thread to the thing
> we are talking about, do you think you might at least change the
> subject line?

Dear Mr. Sullivan,

Reviewing past decisions within a thread labeled WGLC... seems most appropriate.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email