Hi Dave, At 07:29 22-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: >First, you say "generally" which means that an errata is not >disqualified by being controversial. Further, I've never heard of >any requirement for being non-requirement. My own experience with >errata is pretty small, but I've seen them range from silly to obvious.
I am not stating that the requirement for an errata is that it must not be controversial. This was merely a comment on the entire errata discussion. >I don't understand this statement, if it means more than your stated >concern about ADSP. FIrst, any specification is determining how >things will be done in the future. Any correction (errata) to a >specification is modifying the specification and, therefore, also >determining how things will be done in the future. You imply there >is something bad about this, whereas it's inherent. Please clarify. I am not implying that there is anything bad about your proposal or having an erratum. My comment (I'm not using the word concern as it would be too strong in this context) is that the decision to choose between d= and i= affects the direction of any work done on DKIM in future. >I am reasonably certain the draft Errata makes no such >requirement. At the least, Please explain. Your quotation, above, >does not contain any text that makes this obvious to me. That text is from Section 2.7 of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09. Your draft Errata does not make such a requirement. >It is further confusing that you cite some ADSP text as the basis >for your concern about the Errata draft, but then go on to cite some >of Jim's text as the basis for saying his is the better choice. I did not link Jim's text to my citation of the ADSP text. Now I see that it can be confusing. I was going through the comments from several people to get a view of what had been discussed. I commented on a specific part of Jim's proposal and then went on to explain why I chose (d). >Leaving i= as opaque is the job of a specification, not a usage >document. How does Jim's draft help leave i= as opaque? I suggested some text for the errata. The text leaves the Local-part of the "i=" value as opaque. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
