ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2009-03-20 13:26:26


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