[email protected] wrote: > Barry Leiba wrote: > 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. ... > I do not think the changes in draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 should > be marked "Approved" using the errata process, because of criteria 7: > they might (with reasonable probability, in my judgment) be different > from the intended consensus when the document was approved.
Pasi, First, thank you for the clarification. I believe I now do understand your logic and, sadly, I believe your interpretation of the implication of the "might" is a reasonable. Unfortunately the simple, practical result of your interpretation and logic is: Standards track Errata can only be "approved" if there is no controversy about them. Since virtually no IETF activity is entirely without controversy, this effectively means that your (reasonable) interpretation of Rule #7 means that virtually no standards track Errata can get the "Approved" label. And I hope my language makes clear that I think this describes a very large problem with the rule, and not your interpretation of it. So, yes, there's work to be done, to improve the IESG's Errata criteria, but that's a matter for IESG and IETF discussion, not for DKIM working group discussion. The task for the working group is to decide how to proceed, given the actual constraints in the various IETF processes. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
