Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hi All, > > We've had some recent discussion about d=/i= on the list > and a couple of concrete proposals for clarifications to > make to RFC 4871. > - The first is Dave's erratum I-D. [1] > - The second is a proposal from Eliot.[2] > > Barry and I would like to see if there's rough consensus > on one of these, and, if so, we'll then work with Pasi to > get that processed. (There is an open question as to whether > the erratum I-D fits the RFC editor's erratum model or not, > perhaps mostly due to its length, but we'll handle that if/when > we have WG rough consensus on the meat of the topic. For now, > ignore the process issues, and let's see what clarification > we'd like.) > > So, can you please reply to the list with *one* of the > following opinions, before the end of next Monday, Feb > 23rd. > > (a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it. > (b) The erratum I-D [1] is the way to go, but needs work. > (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.) > (c) Eliot's proposal [2] is ready to go. Process it. > (d) Eliot's proposal [2] is the way to go, but needs work. > (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.) > (e) None of the above. > > Thanks, > Stephen & Barry. > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata > [2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011150.html
For long time i have read the both proposals and comments of people. Then let me say that: Eliot's proposal satisfies me. And Dave's erratum I-D satisfies me, plus beautiful.. ;; My conclusion: (b) Thanks, byunghee _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
