A quick point of order here: This is based on errata #1532 which is
"Held for Document Update". Are we free to change the proposed
semantics that are described there, which do allow for a back-compatibility
interpretation?
The errata are suggested changes; 4871 is silent on how to handle
this. Whatever text we put in should clarify the handling.
Now, it's certainly true that our choice of text could constitute a
sufficient change to require another pass through Proposed Standard,
in which case we'd have to decide whether that really is the right
thing to do or not. My sense is that it's not, but others might
differ.
We can argue about whether the MUST in my text would result in
recycling at PS, whether changing it to SHOULD would not (I'm pretty
sure that's the case), and which is the right thing to do.
My opinion on "right thing" is that because DK has past the end of its
life, it's not necessary to recycle at PS to deal with
DK-compatibility issues.
Barry, as participant (who happens to know the chairs)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html