Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi All,
We've had some recent discussion about d=/i= on the list
and a couple of concrete proposals for clarifications to
make to RFC 4871.
- The first is Dave's erratum I-D. [1]
- The second is a proposal from Eliot.[2]
Barry and I would like to see if there's rough consensus
on one of these, and, if so, we'll then work with Pasi to
get that processed. (There is an open question as to whether
the erratum I-D fits the RFC editor's erratum model or not,
perhaps mostly due to its length, but we'll handle that if/when
we have WG rough consensus on the meat of the topic. For now,
ignore the process issues, and let's see what clarification
we'd like.)
So, can you please reply to the list with *one* of the
following opinions, before the end of next Monday, Feb
23rd.
(a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it.
(b) The erratum I-D [1] is the way to go, but needs work.
(Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
(c) Eliot's proposal [2] is ready to go. Process it.
(d) Eliot's proposal [2] is the way to go, but needs work.
(Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
(e) None of the above.
Thanks,
Stephen & Barry.
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
[2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011150.html
For long time i have read the both proposals and comments of people.
Then let me say that: Eliot's proposal satisfies me. And Dave's erratum
I-D satisfies me, plus beautiful.. ;;
My conclusion: (b)
Thanks,
byunghee
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html