Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

[Jim Fenton]

Dave CROCKER wrote: Barry Leiba wrote: The new text has all been agreed to on this list over the last week, in the three sub-threads that Dave started... which is why we only need a brief check to make sure they're OK. We're not excluding anything. Folks, To emphasize: <http://dkim.org/ietf-dkim.htm#errata> Includes a pointer to a diff file between the latest draft and the pre-vote draft. The editing exercise was a matter of folding in the 3 circulated texts and, I believe, the correction Ellen offered. Nits: Sections 6 and 7:  s/semantics is/semantics are/ Section 12:  s/single, Signing Domain Identifier/single Signing Domain Identifier/           s/DKIM's mandatory delivery/DKIM's mandatory output/           s/semantics is/semantics are/ Otherwise looks fine. What are we doing with the other errata in the queue?  Are they to be included in this update or processed as errata? -Jim

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html