I am for #2 personally speaking. The errata discussion has become way
too complex and it would be extremely confusing for operational users
of dkim to have to switch back and forth between rfc and errata.
This, as long as 4871bis is a "short" step before draft standard - and
the draft standard doesnt diverge significantly from 4871bis.
thanks
--srs
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 7:41 PM, DKIM Chair <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
1. Include the other errata into Dave's draft, leave the whole thing as "old
text
/ new text" format, and put it out as an RFC that updates 4871. There would
be
no rev of 4871, and implementors would need to use both documents. Work on
4871-bis from there.
2. Include the other errata and Dave's draft into a 4871-bis, which would
obsolete 4871 and make sure that implementors get the right version. Nothing
would go out as "old / new"; the merged document would be a rev of 4871.
Work on
4871-ter from there.
Then there's the question of where ADSP stands, and whether it can proceed as
is,
or needs to be changed in light of the "errata". Pasi may have some comments
on
this, and I know the working group will. We've been holding ADSP up for a
while,
and we need to release it and move it forward.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html