• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: marf

Current state: Submitted to IESG for Publication

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2012-06-26 00:21 (System)

RFC published

2012-05-01 09:11 Amy Vezza

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2012-04-30 11:47 (System)

IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress

2012-04-30 11:47 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2012-04-30 11:03 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2012-04-30 11:03 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2012-04-30 11:03 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2012-04-26 10:40 Cindy Morgan

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation

2012-04-26 10:31 Pete Resnick

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-04-26 10:31 Pete Resnick

Ballot approval text was generated

2012-04-26 10:13 Pete Resnick

Ballot writeup was changed

2012-04-26 09:27 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-04-25 20:33 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

2012-04-25 16:58 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my points

2012-04-25 16:58 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2012-04-25 16:31 Murray Kucherawy

New revision available

2012-04-25 10:06 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot comment]
Forgive me, but doesn't section 8.2 say that forged abuse reports
constitue a real problem and the two mechanisms available to protect
against them may result in genuine abuse reports being discarded?

Is the message here "chosse which you think might be the least worse
problem" or is it "you should use DKIM and SPF, but be aware that you
may lose some genuine reports"?

I would have liked some clarification as to which message is being sent.

2012-04-25 10:06 Adrian Farrel

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel

2012-04-25 06:47 Murray Kucherawy

New revision available

2012-04-25 06:38 Brian Haberman

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my comments.

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.