Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to find that people on this list realize no
substantial benefit from the text changes proposed. But then, the
intended audience of the RFC and errata is much larger than the population
of this list.
So it may not help "us", but I could see how it might help "them".
There is a downside, however: churn. Issuing updates implies that
the current document is not stable. Would that every RFC the IETF
issued "require" such inconsequential and non-implementation affecting
changes. Alas, updates, etc, almost always mean that the updated
document is fundamentally broken in some or many ways. That is not
even remotely the case here, yet we are rushing at this as if the
email world's fate were held in the balance.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html