Apart from what Dave said... > I don't have any objection about processing the "update" draft as an RFC.
Good. > 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. No one I'm aware of has any intention of circumventing the WG process. Consensus to process "update" (né "errata") as an RFC closes any consideration of other ways to handle it. The remaining errata, which were not controversial, will be handled as errata, as has been planned all along. > The "update" document affects the ADSP, Overview and Deployment > documents. Can the DKIM Chair state in which order the documents > will be processed? We're not specifically defining an order. That said, we believe the effect on ADSP will be small, and I'll have a note out about that Friday or Saturday, depending upon when I can get to writing it up. We expect that ADSP will proceed first, within the next couple of weeks. "Deployment" still needs comments, as Tony presented in SF. We expect that any necessary changes to "Overview" will go before that, and an updated version can go back to Pasi soon -- Tony and the other editors can tell us how that schedule looks. Deployment will be last of the three. In any case, ADSP will not hold up Overview, which would proceed independent of any unanticipated delay in ADSP. I don't think any of this should be a surprise. Barry (as chair) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
