I went back to the archives, and found this one: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q4/010821.html
As far as I can tell, there were no objections, but the chairs never forwarded them to me :-) I have now edited the text for 1378 and 1383 to match the email: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1378 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1383 I think the following ones are now ready to be marked as "Approved" (will do in couple of days): http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1376 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1377 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1378 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1379 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1384 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1461 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1487 The ones listed below look correct, but I would welcome opinions about whether these errors are likely to "cause implementation or deployment problems or significant confusion". (If not, they should be marked "Held for Document Update" instead of "Approved") http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1380 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1381 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1382 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1383 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1386 And there are couple more that I haven't gone through yet (but will do so soon): http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1385 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1532 http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1596 Best regards, Pasi > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Fenton > Sent: 01 May, 2009 21:31 > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: IETF DKIM WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] The "real" (remaining) errata > > Barry Leiba wrote: > > Apart from the item that resulted in the "errata" draft, now heading > > to the IESG as an update to 4871, there are a bunch of other > > non-controversial errata that Pasi needs a response to. Will the > > 4871 authors please handle those, so the working group and Pasi can > > clear them? > > > > I'd need to go back through the archives, but I thought the authors had > already "nodded in agreement" to a number of the non-controversial > errata, and we had discussed that at IETF 73. What's the process to > clear the obvious ones? > > -Jim > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
