Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Are there other changes to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata being proposed?
I believe the Chairs requested that the other, non-controversial, errata
be incorporated into this draft. Is that (editorial) work ongoing?
No, they didn't:
DKIM Chair wrote:
To those who voted against draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata: given, now, that
will be using draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata to move forward, and the other
choices are off the table, can you accept draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as
written? If not, will you post specific changes, in OLD/NEW format, that
make it acceptable to you? Acceptable changes must keep the sense of the
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata document with regard to the new terminology.
That does not mention a bis and it does not cite the items sitting in the RFC
Editor's Errata queue.
I think there is some confusion about the resolution of
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata with the development of RFC4871bis. And while
there has been some reference to a bis effort, it's been consistently -- and I
believe correctly -- kept separate.
Let's resolve the draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata content issues and then move
to focus on a bis effort.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to