If we were to come out with a 4871bis *without* also attempting to move
it forward on the standards track, then I agree that we'd be sending a
bad message to the industry. But I don't think doing a bis without
concurrent advancement is being seriously considered -- I'm certainly
advocating moving it to Draft Standard.
In other words, Tony, you're advocating option 1: put the "errata" out
as an RFC that only makes updates, and reserve the 4871 replacement
for an attempt to go to Draft Standard.
Option 2 is the one you aren't considering seriously.
Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html