Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
might be different from the intended consensus when the document
was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
Rejected.
...
> I do not think the changes in draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 should
be marked "Approved" using the errata process, because of criteria 7:
they might (with reasonable probability, in my judgment) be different
from the intended consensus when the document was approved.
Pasi,
First, thank you for the clarification. I believe I now do understand your
logic and, sadly, I believe your interpretation of the implication of the
"might" is a reasonable.
Unfortunately the simple, practical result of your interpretation and logic is:
Standards track Errata can only be "approved" if there is no controversy
about
them. Since virtually no IETF activity is entirely without controversy, this
effectively means that your (reasonable) interpretation of Rule #7 means that
virtually no standards track Errata can get the "Approved" label.
And I hope my language makes clear that I think this describes a very large
problem with the rule, and not your interpretation of it. So, yes, there's
work
to be done, to improve the IESG's Errata criteria, but that's a matter for IESG
and IETF discussion, not for DKIM working group discussion.
The task for the working group is to decide how to proceed, given the actual
constraints in the various IETF processes.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html