At 13:42 20-03-2009, Barry Leiba wrote:
What path we take to publish the errata beyond the ID that it is now,
and whether the WG is behind publishing it without Pasi's (or the
IESG's) approval, are things we'll be discussing in San Francisco and
on the mailing list. I hope that when we leave SF we'll have most of
the answer to these, which answer we'll confirm on the mailing list.
Pasi mentioned that the errata should not be marked as "Approved"
using the errata process. He proposed getting the changes through
the normal IETF consensus process, and published using the normal
mechanisms we use for publishing updates to IETF work.
The agenda for the upcoming meeting has an item of discussion about
WG-approved errata vs "update" RFC vs "replacement" RFC. It may be
better to stop using the term "errata" or "WG-approved errata" unless
the WG is still considering submitting the ID or a variant of it as a
proper errata. Let's call it "RFC update".
We had a long debate over the last month about RFC 4871. I think
that it is premature to consider Draft Standard. I note that SSP and
the Overview document were set for WGLC in November 2007 according to
the charter. The Deployment document is still work in progress. It
would be better for the DKIM WG to meet its goals before starting a
discussion about Draft Standard.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html