At 02:41 26-01-2009, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of
the erratum?
As Dave pointed out in his draft, there is some confusion about
identities in RFC 4871. If this is a clarification of the consensus
at the date of publication of the RFC, then it can take the Errata path.
RFC 4871 defines one signing identity. If the changes proposed in
this draft are approved, DKIM will provide two identities. By doing
so, the draft is introducing concepts which some may see as
formalizing what is in RFC 4871 while others may consider them as
new. Although the proposed input (d= and i=) for the Assessor module
may not affect existing implementations, the draft changes the
definition of these tags.
In my opinion, the draft is more than an 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?
That may be the best route.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html