Thanks Dave (and the other's acked) for taking this on and making a firm proposal.
I guess we've a couple of questions related to this: Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of the erratum? Separately, is the best route from here to do a 4871bis (assuming the 5378 mess gets sorted), that incorporates all agreed errata to date? If not, then what? I'd welcome opinions on the above in the next week or so, Thanks, Stephen. Dave CROCKER wrote: > Folks, > > Howdy. > > I've just submitted an Internet Draft with text for the working group to > consider. A group of us have been working on it. > > It clarifies and resolves the roles and relationship of the d= and i= tag. > > An html version of the I-D is at: > > <http://dkim.org/specs/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-00.html> > > d/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
