This thread has been split from Dave's long note. Pasi, Dave and others continue to push for submitting draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as "errata", rather than as an RFC with fresh IETF rough consensus. Dave asks what I think is a fair question, looking for more guidance than "I know it when I see it," with regard to how extensive errata changes can get before they're no longer acceptable as errata.
Specifically: > The IESG has Errata rules that cover the qualities required or prohibited > for an Errata entry that applies to a standards track document. By all > appearances, those rules are being invoked but not followed. They say nothing > about the length of an entry and they say nothing about introduction of > terminology, yet those are the two factors being cited for not issuing the > Errata draft. If the IESG is creating new Errata rules, it needs to document > them. What is happening here, however appears to be an ad hoc, undocumented > modification of the rules. > > In spite of multiple requests, we have not yet been told what specific IESG > Errata rule justifies refusing to publish the draft as an Errata entry and > how, > exactly, the rule applies to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata. Pasi, can you, or the IESG as a whole, give Dave and the rest of the working group a more clear answer about what criteria would cause draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871 to be rejected, and how a working group would know that as it develops fixes for errata. Barry -- Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair ([email protected]) http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
