Subject: [ietf-dkim] Jabber meeting...

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:13:22 +0100

Folks,

We just had another pretty good jabber chat (IMO anyway). The
log's here [1] if you're curious, but I'll send a proper summary
tomorrow or Sat when I get a chance.

Next one is penciled in for another two weeks (June 1), same
time slot, but for 90 minutes.

S.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/dkim/2006-05-18.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Mark Delany <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:42:32 +0000

> We just had another pretty good jabber chat (IMO anyway). The

Sorry I couldn't make it but I read the log.

WRT versioning, can I suggest that the rule for incrementing V= is
when backward compatability is broken or when the new functionality
defaults to MUST semantics that are not defined in an earlier draft.

On a side note, I've often thought that pre-standard implementations
should identify who they are and what spec they are based on - merely
for diagnostic purposes.

Mark.