> -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Re: [marf] Message bodies in ARF reports > > Since it's fine for any other multipart/report to omit the copy of the > message, seems to me a lot tidier just to fix 5965 to be consistent. > > Based on my prior experience with errata, it's OK to use the corrected > version of the doc as a base for future work without recycling. In RFC > 5518 we made a fairly bad mistake, saying that you use the i= rather > than d= in a DKIM result. We fixed that with an erratum, seems to be > OK.
So do we need to say "Updates RFC5965" in Scott's draft, perhaps pointing at the erratum in an appendix or something, just to tie it all together? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
