ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2009-03-20 17:05:09
Barry Leiba wrote:
Mike says...
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route.
Well, he has a preference for /only/ going that route, but he can't
actually veto our issuing the Errata under the Errata mechanism.  Anyone can
post anything they want under the Errata mechanism.  Some pretty silly stuff
has gotten posted, over the years.
I believe that what Dave is suggesting is an end run around the IESG.
In which case, I suggest that the working group insist on s/our/my/g;
above so that it has similar status.

Mike, I take what you're saying to mean that you don't think the
working group is behind "an end run around the IESG", and that the
errata should not be saying that it is.

Close. I'm saying that it toes the line of completely inappropriate
for a _working group_ to consider an end run around the IESG, and
that we ought not consider that as an option for the working group.

                Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>