On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:54:35 -0700 Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Folks,
Question to the working group...
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?
Unless I've missed or misread other postings, the only item lodged, so far,
has
been Jim Fenton's suggest that the UAID acronym be replaced, and discussion
about that is proceeding.
Are there other changes to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata being proposed?
I won't propose any. I don't have time to do a proper job of rewriting it. I
think it alters
the IETF conensus view via errata and adds needless complexity.
Silence or lack of change proposals does not equate to thinking the current
draft is good.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html