In article <497daaf9.4000...@att.com> you write: >I strongly support working on a 4871bis >>and<< moving DKIMbase forward >to Draft Standard as part of that.
Same here. I don't feel strongly about errata vs. 4871bis, so I have a practical preference for whatever will get it through the IESG and published as expeditiously as possible. With respect to Eliot's point about long strings, section 3.6.2.2 already says you concatenate the strings together. If something's insufficiently clear we could of course take the opportunity to clarify it. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html