ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Errata

2009-02-22 20:06:59
Jim Fenton wrote:

The IESG statement on RFC errata at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt says,
in part:

  
7. 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. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
    

That "might" in the statement sets a high bar that an erratum should be
approved only if it is clear that it doesn't change the intended
consensus.  When an erratum is controversial doesn't necessarily mean
that it differs from the intended consensus when the document was
approved, but definitely needs to be considered by whomever (Pasi?) is
the approving authority.
  

There was absolutely no consensus that there was a single output of
the DKIM verifier. In fact, it never even came up until _after_ it
became rfc4871 -- the Interop was the first I heard Crocker going
on about this. Regardless of whether people think this is a good
or bad change it is most definitely *NOT* errata. It is a very large
change to the semantics of DKIM, and a bad one at that.

There is already a process for making substantive changes to a
proposed standard: get a community and some consensus around
the change and recycle the document as a new PS.

       Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>