<wearing AD hat> I think the proposed text changes would make RFC 4871 significantly easier to understand, and less prone to multiple interpretations. (I don't have a strong opinion about the content, though -- but a clear spec is better than an ambiguous one.)
However, it seems we're not just fixing simple errors in the wording, but adding new design that was... well, somewhat underspecified in RFC 4871, or at the very least, not well understood at the time (or understood in different ways by different folks). That probably goes a bit beyond what should be changed using errata, and I would suggest doing 4871bis instead. If there's rough consensus about the content, I think it'd be possible to get it published as RFC relatively quickly (say, well before the summer). (Nonetheless, for discussing what needs to be fixed in RFC 4871, a draft containing only the changes, like draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata, is probably quite useful. Merging the changes to produce a 4871bis draft can happen also after we've reached rough consensus on them.) Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Dave CROCKER > Sent: 26 January, 2009 09:24 > To: DKIM IETF WG; DKIM IETF WG > Subject: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871 > > 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/ > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > 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
