Hi Barry,
At 13:24 26-03-2009, DKIM Chair wrote:
Regarding the "errata" draft, two points:
1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking,
and Dave has
already posted about these. The response looks good. We'll look at a final
tally on Friday, 3 April, and ask Dave to push out a new draft then.
Please do not discuss this point on this message thread; use Dave's
three threads
for it instead.
2. On the process, after discussion with Pasi on the matter, there was an
overwhelming consensus in the room to move forward by processing the "errata"
draft as an RFC (with a change in the title to "update" instead of "errata").
Pasi has agreed to expedite the handling, so it should get to the RFC editor
quickly. We need to confirm that on the mailing list, and in this
case, silence
will be taken as consent. If there are no objections, it looks like
the 3 April
draft will be that final version.
I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC.
The three threads created by Dave mention "errata" in the subject
line. If there is Working Group Consensus about Item 2, I would like
the DKIM Chair to clarify whether any request for a WG call for
consensus for any submitted errata related to Item 1 will be
rejected. I prefer to see the procedure followed so that we can
close this issue.
The "update" document affects the ADSP, Overview and Deployment
documents. Can the DKIM Chair state in which order the documents
will be processed?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html