ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

2009-02-05 21:40:38


Jim Fenton wrote:
The big issue is whether this meets the requirements for an IETF
erratum.  It is very large;

Jim,

Glad to hear the big issue is procedural.

As for size, I did not find any constraints on size.


Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
might be different from the intended consensus when the document
was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
Rejected.

Thought we'd established that this isn't doing that.

First, it's resolving ambiguities.  Ambiguities mean there wasn't consensus.

Second, we've had citations to working group Issues that supposedly indicated 
discussion and consensus on this topic, but they turned out to have nothing to 
do with the current concern.  So if you believe there was a clear consensus on 
the matter this Errata draft is attempting to resolve, by all means please do 
cite it specifically.  My own recollection is that this was a matter that did 
not receive discussion or resolution.


Your message of February 2 says,
Since the new consensus appears to be that i= has semantics that are 
entirely 
undefined,

"New consensus" indicates that this might be different from the intended
consensus when the document was approved.

I think your logic is a bit faulty, since you left off the other possibility, 
namely that there was no consensus at the time.


We really need to get this sorted out: whether this qualifies as an
erratum, or whether this discussion should be taking place in the
context of a wider discussion about 4871bis.

Jim, you might consider a larger issue:  This effort was started in response to 
a perceived problem.  A problem that was felt to need resolution sooner, rather 
than later.  How are these concerns helpful towards fielding resolution, the 
community can use?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html