Hi Barry, At 13:24 26-03-2009, DKIM Chair wrote: >Regarding the "errata" draft, two points: > >1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, >and Dave has >already posted about these. The response looks good. We'll look at a final >tally on Friday, 3 April, and ask Dave to push out a new draft then. > >Please do not discuss this point on this message thread; use Dave's >three threads >for it instead. > > >2. On the process, after discussion with Pasi on the matter, there was an >overwhelming consensus in the room to move forward by processing the "errata" >draft as an RFC (with a change in the title to "update" instead of "errata"). >Pasi has agreed to expedite the handling, so it should get to the RFC editor >quickly. We need to confirm that on the mailing list, and in this >case, silence >will be taken as consent. If there are no objections, it looks like >the 3 April >draft will be that final version.
I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC. The three threads created by Dave mention "errata" in the subject line. If there is Working Group Consensus about Item 2, I would like the DKIM Chair to clarify whether any request for a WG call for consensus for any submitted errata related to Item 1 will be rejected. I prefer to see the procedure followed so that we can close this issue. The "update" document affects the ADSP, Overview and Deployment documents. Can the DKIM Chair state in which order the documents will be processed? Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
