Hi Dave,
I have a request and an objection.
First, the request. You may want to include a clarification (I didn't
see it) on the text blob size in DNS and how to deal with keys that are
larger (most implementations simply concatenate; but it should have been
clearly specified). Murray and I discussed this some time ago.
The objection is this: you are introducing new concepts and terminology
in errata. That's not the point of errata. The point of errata is to
correct minor errors in the specification or to clarify points whose
intent was clear to the WG and implementers but perhaps not in the spec,
such that an interoperability problem could arise. I would suggest that
your additions actually deserve a new RFC, and I would have no
objections with you proceeding in that general direction.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html