This thread has been split from Dave's long note.
Here's what I want to try, in order to convert the "majority vote" into what
Stephen and I would be happy to call "rough consensus". I have not discussed
this yet with Stephen, in the interest of getting it out here more quickly, so
he
may feel free to object to this and whack me over the head (as Dave has already
done).
As I said in my note summarizing where we are, the working group vote between
the
a/b/c/d choices has taken the simpler errata changes out of the mix and given
us
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as the path forward. There were, though, enough
votes against it for the chairs to consider it "significant", so:
To those who voted against draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata: given, now, that we
will be using draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata to move forward, and the other
choices are off the table, can you accept draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as
written? If not, will you post specific changes, in OLD/NEW format, that would
make it acceptable to you? Acceptable changes must keep the sense of the
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata document with regard to the new terminology.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org)
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html