Hi Dave, I have a request and an objection.
First, the request. You may want to include a clarification (I didn't see it) on the text blob size in DNS and how to deal with keys that are larger (most implementations simply concatenate; but it should have been clearly specified). Murray and I discussed this some time ago. The objection is this: you are introducing new concepts and terminology in errata. That's not the point of errata. The point of errata is to correct minor errors in the specification or to clarify points whose intent was clear to the WG and implementers but perhaps not in the spec, such that an interoperability problem could arise. I would suggest that your additions actually deserve a new RFC, and I would have no objections with you proceeding in that general direction. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
