DKIM Chair wrote:
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".
The question of whether the "errata" draft's changes are too great
relates to whether it can be processed using the errata process or
whether it requires IETF rough consensus. However, in
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011421.html , Pasi ruled
that it requires IETF rough consensus because it might differ from the
intended consensus when RFC 4871 was approved. So isn't the question of
the size of the changes moot?
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.
I still owe the list a more extensive set of comments, which I had
promised "in a few days". I will send those today.
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.
Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html