At 02:41 26-01-2009, Stephen Farrell wrote: >Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of >the erratum?
As Dave pointed out in his draft, there is some confusion about identities in RFC 4871. If this is a clarification of the consensus at the date of publication of the RFC, then it can take the Errata path. RFC 4871 defines one signing identity. If the changes proposed in this draft are approved, DKIM will provide two identities. By doing so, the draft is introducing concepts which some may see as formalizing what is in RFC 4871 while others may consider them as new. Although the proposed input (d= and i=) for the Assessor module may not affect existing implementations, the draft changes the definition of these tags. In my opinion, the draft is more than an 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? That may be the best route. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
