Subject: [ietf-dkim] Quick summary of sep 28th jabber

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:35:50 +0100

Log is at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/dkim/2006-09-28.html

We went over the actions from last time:

1201/1207 - Arvel proposed some text. Mike will tweak that and include
in the draft and then these can be CLOSED.

1357 - Mike and Dave were working some text to clarify the scenarios
and that's still under way so 1357 stays OPEN

We continued with existing issues:

1360 - We decided to take this to the list to check that we have rough
consensus to drop designation (we seemed to have that on the chat). Jim
took the action to do that (DONE). If 1360 is CLOSED/REJECT (i.e. if
we drop designation), then Mike can delete provisional requirement 5
(about designation) and any associated text.

1361 - We had consensus to remove this, so this is a CLOSED/ACCEPT.

1362 - Resolution is related to 1357 which is being worked so this
stays OPEN until 1357 is sorted.

1363 - We had consensus on an ACCEPT, but the exact change to make
wasn't clear. Dave took an action to send text proposing the exact
change.

"pk" (who?) took an action to raise a new issue about not wandering
aimlessly around the DNS tree.

1364 - We had consensus on an ACCEPT for including these. Mike thinks
they're actually already there in some form though. The action is on
Mike to make sure the requirements are included one way or another.

1365 - This had two parts. A rewording of 5.4 where we had consensus
and Mike has the action. Second part was to delete 5.3 requirement 2
where we didn't have consensus (more agreeing with deletion than
disagreeing) and Doug took an action to bring this to the list (DONE).
Meanwhile 1365 stays OPEN.

1367 - We had consensus on the chat to REJECT this.

1369 - We had consensus to REJECT the proposed wording and keep the
current one.

That was it. We meet again next week. Same time, same agenda. If/when
we manage to empty the issues list then I'd plan for us to go quickly
through each remaining requirement and see if there's really a
consensus for inclusion.

Regards,
Stephen.

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