Jim Fenton wrote:
>
> The IESG statement on RFC errata at
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt says,
> in part:
>
>
>> 7. Changes that modify the working of a protocol to something that
>> might be different from the intended consensus when the document
>> was approved should be either Hold for Document Update or
>> Rejected. Deciding between these two depends on judgment.
>>
>
> That "might" in the statement sets a high bar that an erratum should be
> approved only if it is clear that it doesn't change the intended
> consensus. When an erratum is controversial doesn't necessarily mean
> that it differs from the intended consensus when the document was
> approved, but definitely needs to be considered by whomever (Pasi?) is
> the approving authority.
>
There was absolutely no consensus that there was a single output of
the DKIM verifier. In fact, it never even came up until _after_ it
became rfc4871 -- the Interop was the first I heard Crocker going
on about this. Regardless of whether people think this is a good
or bad change it is most definitely *NOT* errata. It is a very large
change to the semantics of DKIM, and a bad one at that.
There is already a process for making substantive changes to a
proposed standard: get a community and some consensus around
the change and recycle the document as a new PS.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
