ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call

2009-03-06 10:26:15


DKIM Chair wrote:
The first point is that while 2/3 of the working group prefer the stronger 
and 
more extensive clarifications in the "Dave draft" (realizing that he's the 
editor, and that others were involved in drafting this; it's a convenient way 
to 
refer to it) to the more minimal, more "errata-type" update of the "modified 
Eliot draft", Pasi thinks the discussion shows neither text is probably 
appropriate as an RFC Editor errata (that skips the usual IETF consensus 
process).  Dave's changes, in particular, introduce new terminology and make 
enough changes in how the affected areas of the spec are worded that Pasi 
believes -- and thinks the IESG as a whole will agree -- that it needs to go 
through the full process of getting community input and rough IETF consensus.


Please clarify:


1.  While our area director might have concerns about processing these changes 
as an errata, there is the separate question of rough consensus about these 
changes.   Are you saying that a vote of 2/3 is not sufficient to declare 
working group approval?  If so, what is?

     Even if the wg is forced to publish the change through an RFC rather than 
an Errata, it does not make sense to force the wg to cover this ground again, 
given its rough consensus on the topic.


2.  The RFC Editor publishes rules for Errata.  So does the IESG.  You indicate 
that Pasi is refusing to process draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 for two 
reasons:  It introduces new terminology and it makes too many changes.  Neither 
of these is included (or excluded) from the RFC Editor or IESG Errata rules. 
Pasi should explain his basis for adding these constraints.


d/
-- 

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