[ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:56 AM
To: DKIM Chair
Cc: DKIM Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on
The question of whether the "errata" draft's changes are too great
relates to whether it can be processed using the errata process or
whether it requires IETF rough consensus. However, in
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011421.html , Pasi ruled
that it requires IETF rough consensus because it might differ from the
intended consensus when RFC 4871 was approved. So isn't the question of
the size of the changes moot?
OK, now I'm confused. Can someone define IETF rough consensus? The errata had
a 2/3 majority after the last round of discussion... does the IETF ever get a
consensus than that?
Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
Given the likely time frame for an updated RFC (-bis or otherwise), I'd like to
sure that's the only option. Letting the Errata go through as errata and then
up with the -bis seemed like the best option to me... something gets out
then the more complete update follows.
I'm hoping we can have some discussion around this next week.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to