I strongly support working on a 4871bis >>and<< moving DKIMbase forward
to Draft Standard as part of that.
Tony
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Thanks Dave (and the other's acked) for taking this on
and making a firm proposal.
I guess we've a couple of questions related to this:
Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of
the erratum?
Separately, is the best route from here to do a 4871bis
(assuming the 5378 mess gets sorted), that incorporates
all agreed errata to date? If not, then what?
I'd welcome opinions on the above in the next week or
so,
Thanks,
Stephen.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Howdy.
I've just submitted an Internet Draft with text for the working group to
consider. A group of us have been working on it.
It clarifies and resolves the roles and relationship of the d= and i= tag.
An html version of the I-D is at:
<http://dkim.org/specs/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-00.html>
d/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html