I reviewed each of the errata items and didn't see any issues with the
changes indicated.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 5:44 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871 errata
Hi all,
We need to give Pasi guidance on the WG's opinion of the
various errata [1] that've been posted for RFC 4871.
Most of these were generated as a result of the good interop
work done earlier, so this should hopefully be easy.
We need to tell Pasi if we think the errata as posted
should be accepted and if so, whether the proposed
change and accompanying notes are ok or not. If the
text needs changing then we need to generate the new
text required. (Since this could take some time, please
don't try to e.g. polish the notes text so that its
totally nice and shiny:-)
If there are ones we need to discuss, please start
a new thread for each. Once that's settled down, I'll
send out a mail looking for some +1's on the entire set.
(If no-one comments on any of them in two weeks, i.e.
by 2008-10-13, then I'll send out that message
anyway.)
After that's all done, we'll want to think about whether
to do a 4871bis with the changes or a delta or whatever,
but that's for later.
Thanks,
Stephen.
[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4871&eid=
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html