DKIM Chair wrote:
> 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.
Um, the reason I didn't say anything is because of how the question
was phrased. Rather like: "would you prefer your poison on the rocks,
or straight up?". As I've said many times, the non-Crocker-inserted
parts of the errata are not controversial. Nuking his parts in the
entirety would be by far the most expeditious and would easily fit
within the errata framework.
Only having the choice of a poison pill or nothing just plain sucks.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
