So let me try summarise and ask a question. I don't think I've seen anyone who wants to do more than just roll up the existing errata into a bis document, possibly with some editorial changes I guess. I've not seen anyone suggest that we add features or remove a raft of features or make other substantial changes.
Please correct me if I've missed or misinterpreted postings that wanted more change than indicated above. I've seen folks interested in draft standard and some not. As to that, my imperfect understanding of DS is that an RFC needs to be 6 months old before DS is possible. So isn't it the case that on the day that rfcNNNN (being 4871bis) is published that it may as well be PS? If so, then I can't see why anyone would object to interested folks then generating the implementation reports required for DS (and I expect that that'd be easier than with most RFCs given the wide deployment of DKIM). If so, then it may be that we do have consensus to produce a 4871bis that rolls up the errata and makes editorial clarifications that garner consensus along the way but no more. Does that sound about right? Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
