Stephen Farrell wrote:
Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of
the erratum?
Folks,
Given how far-ranging discussion has gotten, it's probably worth taking a
moment
and getting a sense of the group about the original issue, namely:
What are the group's thoughts on the draft Errata that
has been submitted to the group? Is there consensus?
If you like it in it current form, it would help to see a +1.
If you believe the current base specification does not need any changes for the
concern that the draft Errata pursue, then it would help to see a -1.
If you believe an Errata of this type would be helpful but that the current
draft is insufficient, it would help to see your suggestions for *specific
changes* to it.
(I think that covers the range of plausible responses. If you hold a position
that does not fit within this range, please post a note that express it.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html