Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'll confess that my available mental bandwidth for this wg has been
somewhat limited lately, but I hadn't considered that we were not doing a
complete replacement of 4871. This is confusing enough without having to do
mental gymastics between two RFCs to understand DKIM.
Considering that there isn't actually anything wrong with 4871, you
pretty much
have your wish by just ignoring errata.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html