Subject: Re: [spfbis] Follow-up after IETF 85

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:05:44 -0800

Hi Scott, Murray,
At 12:47 23-11-2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>     2.  Scott, in collaboration with Murray Kucherawy (who proposed
>     the original reorganization), undertakes the reorganization and
>     creates the next WG document.  This reorganization should have
>     _no_ text changes in it apart from moving text around.  A note
>     should be added to that version of the draft to indicate that it
>     only reorganizes the text of 08.  This will form the WG draft 09.
>     This version must be uploaded as 09 in order to provide the
>     necessary chain in the tracking tools, so that we can demonstrate
>     that the reorganization did not change the substance of 08.

It's been two weeks since the above was posted.  There wasn't any feedback.

Would it be possible to get a -09 version submitted so that the 
working group can continue its work?

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:44:19 -0500

> working group can continue its work?

First I need to publish the RFC 4408 diff to -08.  I should be able to do that 
today or tomorrow.

Scott K

P.S.  I am subscribed to the list and read it quite regularly.  No need to CC 
me directly on list mail.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:06:54 -0800

Hi SM,

Scott has the proverbial pen.  I stand ready to assist if he needs it.

-MSK

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:05 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Would it be possible to get a -09 version submitted so that the working
> group can continue its work?
>
> Thanks,
> S. Moonesamy
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:50:26 -0800

Hi Scott,
>First I need to publish the RFC 4408 diff to -08.  I should be able 

Could you please provide an update about the status of the diff?

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:10:40 -0500

> Could you please provide an update about the status of the diff?

The status is the same.  Today or tomorrow.

Really this time.  Sorry for the delays.

Scott K

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:33:14 -0800

> The status is the same.  Today or tomorrow.

Many years ago, I was sitting in a bar in around Washington DC, on a 
Saturday.  Behind the bartender was a sign that said "Free beer 
tomorrow".  I expressed confusion, since bars in the area were closed on 
Sunday.

His response was simply "tomorrow never comes"...

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:15:17 -0500

> Saturday.  Behind the bartender was a sign that said "Free beer tomorrow".

And we can trace it back to Lewis Carroll, from "Through the Looking
Glass and what Alice Found There" [Barry grabs his copy of "The
Annotated Alice"]:

     "I'm sure I'll take *you* with pleasure!" the Queen said.
"Twopence a week, and jam every other day."
     Alice couldn't help laughing, as she said "I don't want you to
hire *me* – and I don't care for jam."
     "It's very good jam," said the Queen.
     "Well, I don't want any *to-day*, at any rate."
     "You couldn't have it if you *did* want it," the Queen said. "The
rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
     "It *must* come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
     "No, it ca'n't," said the Queen. "It's jam every *other* day:
to-day isn't any *other* day, you know."

--
Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:38:10 -0800

>> Saturday.  Behind the bartender was a sign that said "Free beer tomorrow".
..
> to-day isn't any *other* day, you know."

I suppose it depends upon whether you'd rather not get beer or not get jam.

d/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:21:09 -0800

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the diff ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg03070.html ).

Murray Kucherawy already indicated that he was ready to assist with 
version -09.  Could you provide a tentative date for when version -09 
will be ready for review?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:25:01 -0500

>will be ready for review?

I expect to have time next work to get it sorted.

Scott K