DKIM Chair wrote:
> The first point is that while 2/3 of the working group prefer the stronger
> and
> more extensive clarifications in the "Dave draft" (realizing that he's the
> editor, and that others were involved in drafting this; it's a convenient way
> to
> refer to it) to the more minimal, more "errata-type" update of the "modified
> Eliot draft", Pasi thinks the discussion shows neither text is probably
> appropriate as an RFC Editor errata (that skips the usual IETF consensus
> process). Dave's changes, in particular, introduce new terminology and make
> enough changes in how the affected areas of the spec are worded that Pasi
> believes -- and thinks the IESG as a whole will agree -- that it needs to go
> through the full process of getting community input and rough IETF consensus.
Please clarify:
1. While our area director might have concerns about processing these changes
as an errata, there is the separate question of rough consensus about these
changes. Are you saying that a vote of 2/3 is not sufficient to declare
working group approval? If so, what is?
Even if the wg is forced to publish the change through an RFC rather than
an Errata, it does not make sense to force the wg to cover this ground again,
given its rough consensus on the topic.
2. The RFC Editor publishes rules for Errata. So does the IESG. You indicate
that Pasi is refusing to process draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 for two
reasons: It introduces new terminology and it makes too many changes. Neither
of these is included (or excluded) from the RFC Editor or IESG Errata rules.
Pasi should explain his basis for adding these constraints.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
