Apart from what Dave said...
I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC.
Good.
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.
No one I'm aware of has any intention of circumventing the WG process.
Consensus to process "update" (né "errata") as an RFC closes any
consideration of other ways to handle it.
The remaining errata, which were not controversial, will be handled as
errata, as has been planned all along.
The "update" document affects the ADSP, Overview and Deployment
documents. Can the DKIM Chair state in which order the documents
will be processed?
We're not specifically defining an order.
That said, we believe the effect on ADSP will be small, and I'll have
a note out about that Friday or Saturday, depending upon when I can
get to writing it up. We expect that ADSP will proceed first, within
the next couple of weeks.
"Deployment" still needs comments, as Tony presented in SF. We expect
that any necessary changes to "Overview" will go before that, and an
updated version can go back to Pasi soon -- Tony and the other editors
can tell us how that schedule looks. Deployment will be last of the
three.
In any case, ADSP will not hold up Overview, which would proceed
independent of any unanticipated delay in ADSP.
I don't think any of this should be a surprise.
Barry (as chair)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html