Subject: Re: [spfbis] spfbis minutes

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 12:50:07 -0800

Hello,

Thanks to John Levine for taking the minutes for IETF 85.  If I am 
not mistaken, Tim Draegen was the Jabber scribe.  Thanks for helping out.

You can view it at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-spfbis  There 
are links to the audio recording and Jabber logs at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/spfbis.html

I'll go through the audio recording and I may post some further 
notes.  There is also the Meetecho recording at 
http://ietf85.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:10:11 -0500

On Fri 09/Nov/2012 15:50:07 -0500 S Moonesamy wrote:
> 
> You can view it at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-spfbis

   Do we want to split the document into a specification and an
   operations guide?  Hum roughly even in the room, strong opposition on
   the jabber.

I wish to clarify that the 2nd document of the split was meant to be an
applicability statement, normative on receiver behavior, rather than an
operations guide.  I think that was fairly clear in the room, not sure
about the jabber.  (Would that explain the difference in volume?)

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:27:25 -0500

> about the jabber.  (Would that explain the difference in volume?)

I understood that from listening to the audio stream, so no it wouldn't have 
explained things, at least not for me.

Scott K

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:08:35 -0800

I don't get the impression that there was even remote consensus for making
a second document at this time, regardless of title or intended status.

-MSK

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>