I strongly support working on a 4871bis >>and<< moving DKIMbase forward
to Draft Standard as part of that.
Tony
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
