As was noted in the DKIM meeting, there are currently 12 reported
errata for RFC 4871:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4871
Couple of questions:
Errata ID 1383: I found some old emails (April 2008) suggesting that
the proposed change might be actually wrong (ABNF doesn't allow
multiple wildcards in the string). If so, a new errata should be
submitted.
Errata ID 1378: This looks like a a technical change to text that's
relatively unambiguous ("REQUIRED"). I'm wondering what existing
implementations do here? If everyone includes the "a=" parameter, it
could be better to clarify Section 3.3 instead (removing the sentence
"..if no algorithm is specified"). And do existing implementations
assume the "a=" parameter is present? (I don't have much information
either way -- but I guess the WG does.)
I'd like the WG to review all the errata. Once the WG chairs send
a list of errata IDs where there's rough WG consensus that the proposed
changes are correct, and appropriate to do via the errata process, I'll
send approval to the RFC editor.
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html