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". >
The question of whether the "errata" draft's changes are too great relates to whether it can be processed using the errata process or whether it requires IETF rough consensus. However, in http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011421.html , Pasi ruled that it requires IETF rough consensus because it might differ from the intended consensus when RFC 4871 was approved. So isn't the question of the size of the changes moot? > 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. > I still owe the list a more extensive set of comments, which I had promised "in a few days". I will send those today. > 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. > Based on Pasi's comments, I had thought we were going the RFC route. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
