Dave Crocker wrote: > 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.
I do not believe the errata meets this criteria, agreed by the IESG for IETF Stream RFCs: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/iesg-statement-07-30-2008.txt: > 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. > Changes that are clearly modifications to the intended consensus, > or involve large textual changes, should be Rejected. In unclear > situations, small changes can be Hold for Document Update. We have already exchanged many off-list emails about this topic, and I get the impression that you disagree both with the IESG statement itself and my judgement call. If that's an accurate impression, let's just agree that we disagree -- this is not a topic for debate on the DKIM WG list. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
