As was noted in the DKIM meeting, there are currently 12 reported errata for RFC 4871:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4871 Couple of questions: Errata ID 1383: I found some old emails (April 2008) suggesting that the proposed change might be actually wrong (ABNF doesn't allow multiple wildcards in the string). If so, a new errata should be submitted. Errata ID 1378: This looks like a a technical change to text that's relatively unambiguous ("REQUIRED"). I'm wondering what existing implementations do here? If everyone includes the "a=" parameter, it could be better to clarify Section 3.3 instead (removing the sentence "..if no algorithm is specified"). And do existing implementations assume the "a=" parameter is present? (I don't have much information either way -- but I guess the WG does.) I'd like the WG to review all the errata. Once the WG chairs send a list of errata IDs where there's rough WG consensus that the proposed changes are correct, and appropriate to do via the errata process, I'll send approval to the RFC editor. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
