I went back to the archives, and found this one:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q4/010821.html
As far as I can tell, there were no objections, but the chairs
never forwarded them to me :-)
I have now edited the text for 1378 and 1383 to match the email:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1378
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1383
I think the following ones are now ready to be marked as "Approved"
(will do in couple of days):
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1376
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1377
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1378
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1379
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1384
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1461
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1487
The ones listed below look correct, but I would welcome opinions
about whether these errors are likely to "cause implementation or
deployment problems or significant confusion". (If not, they should
be marked "Held for Document Update" instead of "Approved")
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1380
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1381
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1382
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1383
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1386
And there are couple more that I haven't gone through yet
(but will do so soon):
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1385
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1532
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1596
Best regards,
Pasi
-----Original Message-----
From:
Jim Fenton
Sent: 01 May, 2009 21:31
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The "real" (remaining) errata
Barry Leiba wrote:
Apart from the item that resulted in the "errata" draft, now heading
to the IESG as an update to 4871, there are a bunch of other
non-controversial errata that Pasi needs a response to. Will the
4871 authors please handle those, so the working group and Pasi can
clear them?
I'd need to go back through the archives, but I thought the authors had
already "nodded in agreement" to a number of the non-controversial
errata, and we had discussed that at IETF 73. What's the process to
clear the obvious ones?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html