Subject: [ietf-dkim] Do we need to meet in Prague?

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:32:59 -0500

Does the DKIM working group think it needs a face-to-face meeting in
Prague, at IETF 81?

I think we do not, though that answer may depend upon whether 4871bis
is ready or needs more discussion, and whether we think we need
discussion about the mailing lists document (which Murray has
patiently been holding off on, while we sort out 4871bis).

Comments?

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

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:53:20 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:33 PM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Do we need to meet in Prague?
> 

Actually, to get some movement on all three of the open documents (4871bis, the MLM document and the implementation report), I am indeed hoping we'll meet in Prague.

-MSK

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:50:42 +0100

Barry,

I'd suggest that the group is in one of two states:

    * We are sufficiently agreed on 4871bis that it can advance, at
      which point I would ask that we circle back to the DOSETA split,
      and how it relates to other work, and what opportunities there
      are.  I think Dave really posed an interesting idea, and what it
      needs is a good test case.  If we can identify that, then I would
      say we should meet on that point, and consider this from a
      re-charter perspective.
    * If we are not concluded on 4871bis, then we should meet to close
      on open issues.

Thanks,

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 12:09:45 +0000

So I've just requested a 1.5 hour slot for Prague. If we figure
we don't need it we can cancel out later.

Stephen.