This thread has been split from Dave's long note.
Pasi, Dave and others continue to push for submitting
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as "errata", rather than as an RFC with fresh
IETF
rough consensus. Dave asks what I think is a fair question, looking for more
guidance than "I know it when I see it," with regard to how extensive errata
changes can get before they're no longer acceptable as errata.
Specifically:
The IESG has Errata rules that cover the qualities required or prohibited
for an Errata entry that applies to a standards track document. By all
appearances, those rules are being invoked but not followed. They say nothing
about the length of an entry and they say nothing about introduction of
terminology, yet those are the two factors being cited for not issuing the
Errata draft. If the IESG is creating new Errata rules, it needs to document
them. What is happening here, however appears to be an ad hoc, undocumented
modification of the rules.
In spite of multiple requests, we have not yet been told what specific IESG
Errata rule justifies refusing to publish the draft as an Errata entry and
how,
exactly, the rule applies to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata.
Pasi, can you, or the IESG as a whole, give Dave and the rest of the working
group a more clear answer about what criteria would cause
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871
to be rejected, and how a working group would know that as it develops fixes
for
errata.
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