Dave Crocker wrote:
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.
I do not believe the errata meets this criteria, agreed by the IESG
for IETF Stream RFCs:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt:
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.
Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus,
or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear
situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update.
We have already exchanged many off-list emails about this topic, and
I get the impression that you disagree both with the IESG statement
itself and my judgement call. If that's an accurate impression,
let's just agree that we disagree -- this is not a topic for
debate on the DKIM WG list.
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html