Subject: [ietf-dkim] Return to issues?

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:31:53 -0800

Is there any possibility that we can return to the discipline of 
tracking individual issues using the issue tracker and our diligent 
issue scribe, Eliot Lear?  I see a lot of discussion that is going 
around and around but not getting to closure.  Again, if you raise an 
issue, please start the subject line with NEW ISSUE.  Once the issue 
number is issued, please replace that with ISSUE #nnnn (or something 
like that) so that Eliot keeps his sanity.  I have to work with him from 
time to time and would prefer he remain sane.

I'd also like to see if, with SSP-02, we can close a bunch of the issues 
that are currently on the tracker.  WG Chairs, can you take a shot at 
that (perhaps just confirming that some of the items marked 
ACCEPT(CHECK) are indeed closed?

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

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:39:33 -0800

> ACCEPT(CHECK) are indeed closed?

I believe that all of the issues that I raised can be closed as far
as I'm concerned.

		Mike

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:36:51 +0000

Jim Fenton wrote:
> issue, please start the subject line with NEW ISSUE.  

Fair point. However some of the recent discussion doesn't seem (to
me) to be easily trackable in this way - there've been a good few
fairly general/rambling posts that'd likely end up as vague issues.

So, I'd further ask that anyone raising an SSP-02 issue for the
next while also include some proposed change, even if the proposed
change isn't (yet) totally precise.

 > Once the issue

We'd have to have seen the insane Eliot to know which is better
though? :-)

> ACCEPT(CHECK) are indeed closed?

I plan to get to that in the next while, day-job permitting. If
someone has cycles, feel free to help by doing a pass on that and
sending your opinion to Barry and I (but not to the list please).
That'd speed me up anyway.

Cheers,
Stephen.