My apologies for the delay in this; I meant to send this early this week, after
getting back in town, but... then I didn't get to it.
The chairs appreciate the view that the "errata" draft makes a lot of changes.
Nevertheless, the view that those changes are too great... is quite a minority
view. The only concrete objection we've seen in this latest round is about the
"UAID" term, and that appears to be resolved by making it "AUID".
Beyond that, I've seen no clear objections and no alternative text proposed.
Rough consensus appears to be with the "errata" draft, with the "AUID" change
made to it. So there it is.
We have time on the agenda next week for discussion of this, and I think that
item will be brief. We have consensus on this text -- and yes, I note that
it's
given only grudgingly by some. I expect to spend the face-to-face time in
getting agreement on the mechanism to proceed (RFC vs non-IESG-approved
errata),
and in discussing where ADSP is and how to proceed on that.
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