I reviewed each of the errata items and didn't see any issues with the changes indicated.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 5:44 AM > To: ietf-dkim > Subject: [ietf-dkim] RFC 4871 errata > > > Hi all, > > We need to give Pasi guidance on the WG's opinion of the > various errata [1] that've been posted for RFC 4871. > > Most of these were generated as a result of the good interop > work done earlier, so this should hopefully be easy. > > We need to tell Pasi if we think the errata as posted > should be accepted and if so, whether the proposed > change and accompanying notes are ok or not. If the > text needs changing then we need to generate the new > text required. (Since this could take some time, please > don't try to e.g. polish the notes text so that its > totally nice and shiny:-) > > If there are ones we need to discuss, please start > a new thread for each. Once that's settled down, I'll > send out a mail looking for some +1's on the entire set. > (If no-one comments on any of them in two weeks, i.e. > by 2008-10-13, then I'll send out that message > anyway.) > > After that's all done, we'll want to think about whether > to do a 4871bis with the changes or a delta or whatever, > but that's for later. > > Thanks, > Stephen. > > [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4871&eid= > _______________________________________________ > 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
