DKIM Chair wrote:
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've placed a revised draft errata at:
<http://dkim.org/#sign>
which associates it directly to the original signing spec, RFC 4871.
It does the string replacement for AUID and it has a NOTE indicating working
group approval.
I expect to spend the face-to-face time in
getting agreement on the mechanism to proceed (RFC vs non-IESG-approved
errata),
Right. "non-IESG-approved" is important phrasing. Folks might realize that
anyone can post anything they want under the errata mechanism. The issue with
IESG approval affects the status label that is associated with that entry.
Anything other than "Rejected" is likely to serve our purposes, until the
change
is folded into RFC4871bis.
On the matter of whether to issue the Errata under Errata or defer its release
further, we should consider how long the delay is likely to be, especially
given
the unspecified scope of RFC4871bis.
Some folks assume that the scope is trivially small, but a bis effort that is
seeking Draft status can -- and, IMO, should -- carefuly review the
specification and remove what has proven extraneous.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html