My apologies for the delay in this; I meant to send this early this week, after getting back in town, but... then I didn't get to it.
The chairs appreciate the view that the "errata" draft makes a lot of changes. Nevertheless, the view that those changes are too great... is quite a minority view. The only concrete objection we've seen in this latest round is about the "UAID" term, and that appears to be resolved by making it "AUID". Beyond that, I've seen no clear objections and no alternative text proposed. Rough consensus appears to be with the "errata" draft, with the "AUID" change made to it. So there it is. We have time on the agenda next week for discussion of this, and I think that item will be brief. We have consensus on this text -- and yes, I note that it's given only grudgingly by some. I expect to spend the face-to-face time in getting agreement on the mechanism to proceed (RFC vs non-IESG-approved errata), and in discussing where ADSP is and how to proceed on that. 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
