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

In response to Dave's long note, I think there are (at least) two
major issues that we need to separate:

1. How to move forward and declare working group rough consensus on
the errata draft.

2. Why, specifically, Pasi thinks the "errata" draft requires fresh
IETF rough consensus.

I'm going to split these into two new threads; messages forthcoming.

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