ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving to consensus on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata

2009-03-11 14:04:58


Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Are there other changes to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata being proposed?

I believe the Chairs requested that the other, non-controversial, errata
be incorporated into this draft.  Is that (editorial) work ongoing?


No, they didn't:

DKIM Chair wrote:
...
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.

That does not mention a bis and it does not cite the items sitting in the RFC 
Editor's Errata queue.

I think there is some confusion about the resolution of 
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata with the development of RFC4871bis.  And while 
there has been some reference to a bis effort, it's been consistently -- and I 
believe correctly -- kept separate.

Let's resolve the draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata content issues and then move 
on 
to focus on a bis effort.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>