Hi Pasi,
At 06:14 29-01-2009, Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
This isn't much clearer, but it does suggest a possible test: if these
changes had been proposed when the document was about to be approved,
would they have been accepted?
As someone else pointed out, the clarification may be justified
sooner than later. We could argue about what constitutes an
errata. That might be premature at this stage as the the WG Chair
posted a question about the substance of the erratum [1].
I wasn't following DKIM when RFC 4871 came out, so I'm not in
very good position to guess here. But educated guesses from folks
who were around back then are welcome -- if most folks guess
this would have been accepted, I'm willing to reconsider.
I suggest that the WG consider an errata that addresses the immediate
problem while leaving the larger part of the work for a 4871bis.
Yes, I think this could be indeed valuable. You could e.g. do a WGLC
for the rfc4871-errata draft, reach rough DKIM WG consensus on that,
and post a statement saying so. That's not the same as IETF consensus,
but probably a good working assumption while 4871bis goes through
the process.
The WG could also consider doing the above once there is agreement
about the changes.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/010877.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html